PNC Bank - bad experience this morning

[eye95]

In 2011, the year I found first, there were 5086 bank robberies. 70 times shots were fired. ZERO customers, employees, and employee family were killed. ZERO.

Who was killed? Thirteen people. Ten perps, two cops, and one guard. These are the people with the guns, clearly shooting at each other. Lesson: Don't start the shooting, and, almost certainly, no one will be killed. Let the guy leave the bank.

 

[independence]

Wow. I like how you responded. It looks like I jumped to a conclusion. For that, I am sorry.

Anyway, without further information, just based on the detail in the scenarios you have laid out, I would not draw. Depending on my position, I would either turn strong side away from the robber (if I am close, I don't want to motivate him to get any stupider than having drawn), and (if I can do so without drawing attention) I will put my hand on my firearm and deactivate retention, or I would immediately move to cover and concealment. Most robbers, even if the brandish, will not shoot. I don't want any actions I take to cause the shooting to start. The teller has been trained and tested. He or she knows exactly what to do to get the robber and his gun out the door. And that is the goal, getting him out.

The only way I'd draw is if I intended to shoot. That will only happen if the shooting has started or I am absolutely it is imminent. In that case, my priorities are (1) protecting my family members, (2) protecting me, (3) protecting friends, and (4) protecting other innocents. In fact, (4) is so far down on the list, I will only do (4) if I can do so at zero further risk to (1), (2), and (3). I am not a policeman, and I feel no duty to risk me and mine for others. I may choose to do so, but that is my choice.

I hope no other carriers in a bank during a robbery feel the need to be proactive. Let the bank handle it. They know what they are doing. Draw and fire ONLY if the shooting has already started of you are 100% sure (I don't know how you could be) that shooting is imminent.

In 2011, the year I found first, there were 5086 bank robberies. 70 times shots were fired. ZERO customers, employees, and employee family were killed. ZERO.

Who was killed? Thirteen people. Ten perps, two cops, and one guard. These are the people with the guns, clearly shooting at each other. Lesson: Don't start the shooting, and, almost certainly, no one will be killed. Let the guy leave the bank.

No worries. Thanks for your response. Interesting points. Going to have to think this over and do some research on my own before I develop an opinion. My gut says that if a BG has a gun pointed at a teller then that teller's life is in immediate danger and the OCer would in many cases be doing best to shoot the BG. But I see where you are coming from as far as banks. Maybe in some cases not interfering would, in fact, be best. One thing that would be helpful is if you have a link to the 2011 study you referenced...?

I thought it was interesting when you mentioned turning your strong side away from the BG so that he can't see your holstered firearm. I have been thinking lately on the pros and cons of OC vs. CC. Seems to me that each has their benefits and downsides. In this case, it sounds like you feel it would be to your benefit for the BG not to notice that you are carrying, at least once the holdup is underway.

 

[eye95]

Before he has pulled his gun, OC is a deterrent. Once he has pulled it, deterrence is moot and the sight of a firearm could motivate undesirable action on his part.

I will post the link the next time I am on the computer where I found it. It is just the FBI bank robbery statistics.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[samkent]

My gut says that if a BG has a gun pointed at a teller then that teller's life is in immediate danger and the OCer would in many cases be doing best to shoot the BG.

If he's talking/robbing the teller that hints the GG is behind them.
Are you saying shoot him in the back?
And if your shots lead the BG into shooting and hitting others?
I don't know. I'm just saying.

 

[independence]

If he's talking/robbing the teller that hints the GG is behind them.
Are you saying shoot him in the back?
And if your shots lead the BG into shooting and hitting others?
I don't know. I'm just saying.

I guess I was imagining being to the side of the BG, or moving to the side of the BG. That's the problem with hypothetical scenarios. There are often too many variables in the real world to really be able to say how one would react ahead of time.

 

[eye95]

I guess I was imagining being to the side of the BG, or moving to the side of the BG. That's the problem with hypothetical scenarios. There are often too many variables in the real world to really be able to say how one would react ahead of time.

Which is why you start from the following position:

I know that almost all bank robberies do not result in gunfire. Banks WANT the gunman out the door with the money. They know how to do this. So I will not draw and I will not fire, unless (extremely unlikely) circumstances lead me to believe that death or serious injury are imminent or already happening.

Here is that link: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics-2011/bank-crime-statistics-2011

 

[samkent]

The way I see it is I am responsible for the result of my bullets.
If my bullet stops a robbery, I'm a hero.
If my bullet causes a last twitch in the BG which results in the death of a teller, I may be bunking with Bubba for 5 to 15.

Now if the BG starts going from customer to customer that's different.
I have a 12 round debt card he can make a withdrawl from.

Maybe I'm just a legal coward. But my CC permit doesn't give blanket permission to stop any crime I may see.
It doesn't come with a legal shield like the police have.

 

[eye95]

The underlying point remains: Banks that don't want lawful carriers don't want them because they fear them going all cowboy during a robbery. So don't plan on doing so. And, for God's sake, stop saying that you will. You only entrench their mistaken belief!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The underlying point remains: Banks that don't want lawful carriers don't want them because they fear them going all cowboy during a robbery. So don't plan on doing so. And, for God's sake, stop saying that you will. You only entrench their mistaken belief!

I never said I would just start blasting......

but I don't agree with your concept of not drawing. as it hard as it may be to believe, I don't take the good intentions of armed felons at face value.

I'm not willing to die or kill over the banks money, and the banks are insured for all their money anyway. But I don't trust that the felon won't start shooting. it may not even be a robbery, the guy may come in with robbery as a ruse to get his ex girlfriend who's the bank manager to come out of her office so he can kill her then ho out in blaze of glory gunning down the patrons.

so would I intervene to stop a robbery.. most likely not... but I certainly would draw/move to advantageous position if feasible to do so to be ready incase he does start shooting. there's a difference between the two..... if the robber is given a sack of money heads out the door I couldn't care less. if he decides to start liquidating witnesses then I'm ready to act in that case. just being ready to act doesn't mean you want to start a gun battle in the Seafirst Federal Savings (Member FDIC) lobby

 

[samkent]

but I certainly would draw/move to advantageous position if feasible to do so to be ready incase he does start shooting.

I'm not sure you could do that without drawing attention to yourself.
If another customer see's you draw they may think you are in on it. That then puts a bullseye on you for some other CC customer who didn't see the BG at the counter.

Back to the liability thing.
Do you think the bank is going to cover any damage your bullets do inside the building?
What about the crime scene clean up (blood)?
You caused it all. I'll bet they stick you with the bill.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I'm not sure you could do that without drawing attention to yourself.
If another customer see's you draw they may think you are in on it. That then puts a bullseye on you for some other CC customer who didn't see the BG at the counter.

Back to the liability thing.
Do you think the bank is going to cover any damage your bullets do inside the building?
What about the crime scene clean up (blood)?
You caused it all. I'll bet they stick you with the bill.

unlikely, of the people who have concealed carry licenses very few of those actually regularily carry.

if the robber was paying attention to an open carrier in the first place he would either have not robbed the place at that time or taken out the OCer first... or came in too quick for response and ordered the OCer to disarm. if you're still OCing while the robbery is in progress chances are you're in a good position to start preparing to respond.

as far as cleanup, that's not something to be concerned about if you need to use deadly force. simply isn't. damage to computer monitors, walls, windows, etc is not an expensive repair, and unless the shooting was clearly negligent the bank probably won't even ask... it's much easier just to write off the 200 dollars to have the wall plastered and repainted from taxes...

again, I'm kind of agreeing with eye 95 that you shouldn't risk your life over the banks money... but simply standing idle and hoping you can outdraw the robber if he decides to start shooting seems not to be much better. if you can get behind a counter or wall or pillar and draw while observing the situation is what I would try to do if feasible

 

[independence]

This is as bad as the the gun-grab or take-OCer-out-first myths. Hardly any bank robberies result in gunfire. I don't know of a single one.

Bank workers are trained to comply 100% with demands of robbers. My wife was robbed once. He was armed, but did not show the firearm. His demands
were met, he left, and was picked up within thirty minutes. This is how almost all bank robberies go down. THAT is a simple robbery--almost all of them.

It would take a LOT to convince me that I needed to use my firearm.

The worst part is that the kind of talk I just witnessed in this thread is exactly why some banks try to deny carry. They are afraid the carriers will be cowboys. I just heard some cowboy language loud and clear. What a pity.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

No doubt, you can come up with examples, but they are RARE. In the overwhelming majority of bank robberies, even the armed robberies, no shots are fired. NONE. Banks know how to deal with robberies to avoid the gunfire. Yeah, though, every once in a while, there's going to be an idiot. Once in a GREAT while--and mostly, I'm sure, out of negligence, and not out of any intent to fire.

rast1971: I am talking about BANK robberies. Shots are almost never fired in BANK robberies.

In 2011, the year I found first, there were 5086 bank robberies. 70 times shots were fired. ZERO customers, employees, and employee family were killed. ZERO.

Who was killed? Thirteen people. Ten perps, two cops, and one guard. These are the people with the guns, clearly shooting at each other. Lesson: Don't start the shooting, and, almost certainly, no one will be killed. Let the guy leave the bank.

Which is why you start from the following position:

I know that almost all bank robberies do not result in gunfire. Banks WANT the gunman out the door with the money. They know how to do this. So I will not draw and I will not fire, unless (extremely unlikely) circumstances lead me to believe that death or serious injury are imminent or already happening.

Here is that link: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics-2011/bank-crime-statistics-2011

eye95, I may be processing these numbers wrong, so please double check me:

FBI Bank Crime Statistics for 2011

• There were 5,014 robberies (burglaries and larcenies not included in that number)
• In 1,242 of those robberies, a visible firearm was used (as opposed to the mere claim of one existing)
• There were 70 instances involving the discharge of firearms
• 70 is 5.63% of 1,242 and 5.63 goes into 100 17.74 times
• This means that there is a 1 in 18 chance of a firearm being discharged during a bank robbery

Convenience store robbery statistics
Below are the results of a study entitled, "Convenience store robberies in selected metropolitan areas. Risk factors for employee injury." Granted, it's from the nineties and is from selected areas. Also, the only publicly available version of this study consists of the abstract findings section which provides some but not all of the hard numbers. Here is data from that:

• The study was done on 758 robberies
• 63% (478) of the robberies involved the use of a firearm
• 12% (91) were associated with an injury to at least one employee (doesn't even count injuries to customers)
• The study says "...the employee probability of injury in a robbery was lower with firearm use compared with no weapon or use of a blunt instrument..." That means that an un-cited number consisting of less than half of 12% represents the amount of injuries due to a firearm discharge. Let's be conservative and choose 5.9%, which is obviously just less than half of 12%.
• 5.9 goes into 100 16.94 times so there is at the very least a 1 in 17 chance of injury to an employee when a firearm is used in the robbery. This is still somewhat conservative because it is not a figure to represent the discharge of a gun, only the injuries from guns. Guns may have been discharged more often in that, with the BG missing the target, etc.

I'm not a statistician, but at present I'm not seeing numbers showing a significantly lower chance of gun discharge at a bank and as compared with a convenience store. Maybe your Google-Fu is better than mine and you can come up with a more conclusive study. Also, I did my best on the numbers, but math isn't my strong point. I might have missed something. I'm open to learning new things but I'm just not seeing the hard evidence yet.

 

[eye95]

You are not looking at the same statistics as I am. The numbers don't match.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[independence]

You are not looking at the same statistics as I am. The numbers don't match.

My numbers:

FBI Bank Crime Statistics for 2011

• There were 5,014 robberies (burglaries and larcenies not included in that number)
• In 1,242 of those robberies, a visible firearm was used (as opposed to the mere claim of one existing)
• There were 70 instances involving the discharge of firearms
• 70 is 5.63% of 1,242 and 5.63 goes into 100 17.74 times
• This means that there is a 1 in 18 chance of a firearm being discharged during a bank robbery

Your numbers:

In 2011, the year I found first, there were 5086 bank robberies. 70 times shots were fired. ZERO customers, employees, and employee family were killed. ZERO.

With all due respect, your number of 5086 was not accurate, because the study you cited shows only 5,014 of those incidents to be actual robberies (burglaries and larcenies not included in that number). Also, only 1,242 of these incidents show to have been with a visible firearm, which is the topic we are discussing. We are looking at the same numbers in the same study, but your conclusions were based off a the wrong figure.

 

[eye95]

Check out what they mean by "instance." It does not mean one robbery. If twenty shots were fired during one single robbery, it was counted as twenty instances. That throws your numbers all off.

 

[independence]

Check out what they mean by "instance." It does not mean one robbery. If twenty shots were fired during one single robbery, it was counted as twenty instances. That throws your numbers all off.

Not true, my friend. Look at this table from the FBI study you cited:



(Click to zoom)

It's a subcategory entitled Modus Operandi and it is very clear from the footnotes that each number represents a robbery case, not a shot fired.

At this point, your case is looking weak. That doesn't mean that your wrong. It just means that you have failed to show through statistics that you are right.

 

[eye95]

I think you missed this:

"These acts included 70 instances involving the discharge of firearms, one instance involving an explosive, and 116 instances involving assaults. (One or more acts of violence may occur during an incident.)"

You tenor seems to have returned to the one I originally balked at. My apology is now withdrawn, and I shall now move on. Have a nice life.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

this should be an easy debate to settle.

meekly ask the robber if you're allowed to leave the bank, if they say no and proceed to continue the robbery they are now using the treat of deadly force to detain your movement to further the commission of a felony.. meaning in my state the robbers are committing kidnapping in the first degree against you. (also in my state it's the same degree of crime as murder, a Class A felony)

so you're not being a cowboy... you're using reasonable force to escape the kidnapper

debate solved.

 

[independence]

I think you missed this:

"These acts included 70 instances involving the discharge of firearms, one instance involving an explosive, and 116 instances involving assaults. (One or more acts of violence may occur during an incident.)"

You tenor seems to have returned to the one I originally balked at. My apology is now withdrawn, and I shall now move on. Have a nice life.

It's sad that when I simply suggest you had not provided a supporting citation for your opinion that you again feel the need to leave/write me off forever. I am in search of the truth, and expressed a concern about your interpretation of the numbers. That doesn't mean I think your wrong. I would just like to understand what you base your opinion on. Maybe in the end I will agree with you! Are you like this all the time, or is this just a bad week? Let's discuss it, and allow the truth to rise to the top...

You are right that I failed to address the paragraph you cited...

Injuries, Deaths, and Hostages Taken

Acts of violence were committed during 201 of the 5,086 robberies, burglaries, and larcenies that occurred during the 12-month period. These acts included 70 instances involving the discharge of firearms, one instance involving an explosive, and 116 instances involving assaults. (One or more acts of violence may occur during an incident.) These acts of violence resulted in 88 injuries, 13 deaths, and 30 persons taken hostage.

...However, if you look at this phrase...

These acts included 70 instances involving the discharge of firearms...

...You can see that if it had been worded like this...

These acts included 70 discharges of firearms...

...Then it could have been interpreted to be that the number 70 represented the total number of discharges. But since it is actually worded like this...

These acts included 70 instances involving the discharge of firearms...

...Then it is actually referring to the amount of robberies (70) which actually involved one or more discharges of a firearm.

As proof of my point, you can see that you actually used the word "instance" in the very same way earlier in this thread...

BTW, does anyone know of any instances where a customer used his firearm during a robbery where someone else had not initiated the shooting?

When you said that, were you looking for the total number of discharges of a firearm, or were you looking for the total number of bank robberies that involved one or more discharges of a firearm? I think it's pretty obvious that you meant the latter.

I think this shows that my numbers are correct. However, I don't see that as a final word. Maybe you will come up with a study that shows something not shown in these studies and I would welcome that. As it is, you have not provided a conclusive citation that shows your opinion is correct.

FBI Bank Crime Statistics for 2011

• There were 5,014 robberies (burglaries and larcenies not included in that number)
• In 1,242 of those robberies, a visible firearm was used (as opposed to the mere claim of one existing)
• There were 70 instances involving the discharge of firearms
• 70 is 5.63% of 1,242 and 5.63 goes into 100 17.74 times
• This means that there is a 1 in 18 chance of a firearm being discharged during a bank robbery

Convenience store robbery statistics
Below are the results of a study entitled, "Convenience store robberies in selected metropolitan areas. Risk factors for employee injury." Granted, it's from the nineties and is from selected areas. Also, the only publicly available version of this study consists of the abstract findings section which provides some but not all of the hard numbers. Here is data from that:

• The study was done on 758 robberies
• 63% (478) of the robberies involved the use of a firearm
• 12% (91) were associated with an injury to at least one employee (doesn't even count injuries to customers)
• The study says "...the employee probability of injury in a robbery was lower with firearm use compared with no weapon or use of a blunt instrument..." That means that an un-cited number consisting of less than half of 12% represents the amount of injuries due to a firearm discharge. Let's be conservative and choose 5.9%, which is obviously just less than half of 12%.
• 5.9 goes into 100 16.94 times so there is at the very least a 1 in 17 chance of injury to an employee when a firearm is used in the robbery. This is still somewhat conservative because it is not a figure to represent the discharge of a gun, only the injuries from guns. Guns may have been discharged more often in that, with the BG missing the target, etc.

 

[JustaShooter]

FBI Bank Crime Statistics for 2011
•There were 5,014 robberies (burglaries and larcenies not included in that number)
•In 1,242 of those robberies, a visible firearm was used (as opposed to the mere claim of one existing)
•There were 70 instances involving the discharge of firearms
•70 is 5.63% of 1,242 and 5.63 goes into 100 17.74 times
•This means that there is a 1 in 18 chance of a firearm being discharged during a bank robbery

I'd just like to add (because that's the way I am) that the bold section is incorrect - that is, there is a 1 in 18 chance of a firearm being discharged in a visibly armed bank robbery. There is only a 1 in 72 chance of a firearm being discharged during a bank robbery of any kind.

Yes, I know i'm a bit pedantic at times. Thank you. :lol: