Bank Robberies from a bankers viewpoint.

[ursavus.elemensis]

Oh, come on! Did you people think I was serious?

Unless you work for the cops or the bank's insurance company, you do not need to risk your own life to protect their insured assets.

But, I did hope that at least someone would realize in reading my posts to this thread that they did not actually know the PA uniform Firearms Act backwards and forewards, and that someone would go read it and post the relevant sections. Answering the questions in the lead off post to this thread REQUIRES knowledge of that law. ANY of us who carry a firearm MUST have a working knowledge of that law.

Title 18, §506. Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons.

(a) General rule. — The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

(1) the actor would be justified under section 505 of this title (relating to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;

(2) under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and

(3) the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

(b) Exceptions.—Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section:

(1) When the actor would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, he is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person.

(2) When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if he knew that he could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause him to do so before using force in his protection if the actor knows that he can obtain complete safety in that way.

(3) Neither the actor nor the person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the dwelling, or place of work of the other to any greater extent than in his own.



Title 18, §507. Use of Force for the Protection of Property.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property. —The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:

(1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or

(2) to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if:

(i) the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled to possession; and

(ii)—

(A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or

(B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or reentry until a court order is obtained.

(b) Meaning of possession. — For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section:

(1) A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore it to him is no longer in possession, unless the property is movable and was and still is located on land in his possession.

(2) A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely by setting foot thereon.

(3) A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession thereof except against the licensor acting under claim of right.

(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force. —

(1) The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:

(i) such request would be useless;

(ii) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or

(iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.

(2) The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

(3) The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:

(i) the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and

(ii) it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).

*(4)(i) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:

(A) there has been an entry into the actor’s dwelling;

(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and

(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.

(ii) If the conditions of justification provided in sub*paragraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:

(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(d) Use of confinement as protective force. — The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he can do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

(e) Use of device to protect property. —The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause or known to cre*ate a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury;

(2) the use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be; and

(3) the device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.

(f) Use of force to pass wrongful obstructor. — The use of force to pass a person whom the actor believes to be intentionally or knowingly and unjustifiably obstructing the actor from going to a place to which he may lawfully go is justifiable, if:

(1) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to obstruct the actor;

(2) the actor is not being obstructed from entry or movement on land which he knows to be in the possession or custody of the person obstructing him, or in the possession or custody of another person by whose authority the obstructor acts, unless the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would not be reasonable to postpone the entry or movement on such land until a court order is obtained; and

(3) the force used is not greater than it would be justifiable if the person obstructing the actor were using force against him to prevent his passage.

*(Chgd. by L.1980, Act 1980-235; eff. 12/19/80.)

[The Drew]

keep in mind, that the key word in all the force statutes is "believe" Not whether in reality things are different, but what you believe at the time...

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by ursavus.elemensis

Oh, come on! Did you people think I was serious?

Unless you work for the cops or the bank's insurance company, you do not need to risk your own life to protect their insured assets.

But, I did hope that at least someone would realize in reading my posts to this thread that they did not actually know the PA uniform Firearms Act backwards and forewards, and that someone would go read it and post the relevant sections. Answering the questions in the lead off post to this thread REQUIRES knowledge of that law. ANY of us who carry a firearm MUST have a working knowledge of that law.

Yes, everyone thought you were serious; you didn't give us any reason to think that you weren't.

And most folks here are very familiar with the UFA.

I'm not really sure I see where you were trying to go. If someone asks a question and you would like to answer it, please do so. If someone asks a question and you don't want to answer, then don't answer.

Simply making outrageous and erroneous statements, in the hope that someone will slap you with a cite to the UFA, doesn't do anyone any good. It creates conflict on the board, and wastes the time of folks who actually take the time to correct your intentionally erroneous posts.

Rule.

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by The Drew

keep in mind, that the key word in all the force statutes is "believe" Not whether in reality things are different, but what you believe at the time...

It is what a reasonable person in your position would believe, based on what is known to you at the time.

Kind of hard to believe until you hear it for the first time in open court and nobody guffaws because they can't believe what you actually believe is irrelevant.

[MarcS]

I don't care about the money involved, i care about the lives at stake. The teller at my local branch is a very nice young girl and i wouldn't feel good about myself if i was standing by waiting for her to eat a bullet so i could justify myself shooting some asshole.

I train to reduce my chances of dying in a gunfight, which is far better than compromising my morals to increase survivability.

[ursavus.elemensis]

Rule, and others: I am sorry if I offended you or the other readers through my obtuse ways. Seriously, I was kidding and i am sorry if it was a distraction or annoying, or whatever. I do not want to detract from this great forum.

Now, as for this statement, "And most folks here are very familiar with the UFA," I must respectfully disagree with you. Postings to this thread (other than mine) betray that many readers of the forum are not so familiar with the sections of the UFA that I quoted / posted above. I would suggest that the whole premise of this thread actually stems from the "what would you do if..." line of inquiry that itself is only speculative if one is not actually familiar with the UFA. And, I will go further than that: Any answers to the question of "what would you do if.." MUST be based on the UFA (right? our actions MUST be based on the UFA so our answers should be as well) and therefore, I would think that answers should at least refer to it if not quote from it directly or those answers must be assumed to originate from people who are not actually "very familiar with the UFA". So, Rule, no disrespect intended to you or anyone else, but I do not come to the same conclusion that you do regarding the overall working knowledge of the UFA.

[ursavus.elemensis]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

It is what a reasonable person in your position would believe, based on what is known to you at the time.

Kind of hard to believe until you hear it for the first time in open court and nobody guffaws because they can't believe what you actually believe is irrelevant.

That's one way to look at it, (i.e., "It is what a reasonable person in your position would believe, based on what is known to you at the time")

Another way to look at it is that the UFA states in Title 18, §505, subsection (b), paragraph (3) Use of Force in Self-Protection, "Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action."

Granted, that particular paragraph applies to the section on Use of Force in Self-Protection, and is not repeated in the section dealing with Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons. But in the section that pertains to that topic, and pertains directly to the topic of this thread, Title 18, §506. Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons, subsection (a), paragraph (2) says, "under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be".

Neither section 505 or 506 refer at all to any kind of "reasonable person" standard. In fact, both sections 505 and 506 explicitly give the person using the protective force the right to determine at the time of the use of force if the force is needed.

Rule, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and I respect the fact that you are a lawyer and I am not, but in reading the text of the UFA, I've come to a different conclusion about this than you have. Again, I will point out that reading, re-reading, and then re-reading the UFA again and again is necessary for anyone who carries a gun.

[1927A1]

Never been in a bank robbery, but I was held at gun point by a would be thief.
I was amazed at how well he had the area scoped out.
I remember getting tunnel vision, and my only focus was the guy w/ the revolver. Also thoughts flew threw my head like wild fire. "Should I challenge him?" "He's as afraid as I, and won't come close enouigh to frisk me." "If I comply he may shoot any way", "Maybe he's strung out on crack."
I played by his rules, emptied most of my belongings onto the sidewalk. I kept my sterling full case pocket watch, kept my wallet, kept my Buck 110 folding knife. I placed .03 in cash, my pocket comb and my hankey on the ground. He asked repeatedly if that was all I had and I said yes. He finally told me to get, and I took his advise.
Today in my town the methods have changed, they now come in 2 man teams, and while you face one, the other comes from behind and whacks you, then they simply empty your pockets.

In a bank robbery, I would comply. If there is more than one and you fired on him chances are good that another would take you out. Well unless you had a FA, but then how many innocents would you take along with the perps.

[jsb889]

For me, it would all depend on the number of robbers, how serious I percieved them to be in actually killing someone, and my position in relation to their field of view. If it was one person and I was behind him and I thought he was serious would be able the only time I'd fire without him first firing. If there were any other scenario, I'd probably wait until I saw a reasonable threat to myself or others to fire.

I'd have a very hard time living with myself knowing I could have protected someone that was injured due to either me not responding or someone injured due to me responding and missing or going down and the robbers go beserk. I just hope, pray, and hold my nuts that I never get into that situation

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by ursavus.elemensis

That's one way to look at it, (i.e., "It is what a reasonable person in your position would believe, based on what is known to you at the time")

Another way to look at it is that the UFA states in Title 18, §505, subsection (b), paragraph (3) Use of Force in Self-Protection, "Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action."

Granted, that particular paragraph applies to the section on Use of Force in Self-Protection, and is not repeated in the section dealing with Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons. But in the section that pertains to that topic, and pertains directly to the topic of this thread, Title 18, §506. Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons, subsection (a), paragraph (2) says, "under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be".

Neither section 505 or 506 refer at all to any kind of "reasonable person" standard. In fact, both sections 505 and 506 explicitly give the person using the protective force the right to determine at the time of the use of force if the force is needed.

Rule, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and I respect the fact that you are a lawyer and I am not, but in reading the text of the UFA, I've come to a different conclusion about this than you have. Again, I will point out that reading, re-reading, and then re-reading the UFA again and again is necessary for anyone who carries a gun.

I can see where you would come to that result -- and part of the reason I got so grumbly about your prior post is that you're suggesting the UFA to the exclusion of all other law.

Part of the reason that the internet is dangerous is that it provides a little information to a lot of people -- most of whom have no expertise in the area. This allows incredible misunderstandings to propagate very, very fast.

Let me start with this: The portion of the law you are citing, sections 505 and 506 are not part of the UFA. The UFA is comprised of section 6100 et seq. of title 18. You're citing section 500 et seq, which are the general principles of justification under title 18 -- justification is a general principle, not simply limited to the UFA. Deadly force and the UFA are completely different sections.

Why do you make that mistake? Because the page you viewed had all the "relevant statutes" put in one place under the heading of the UFA. Why didn't you know any better -- because you haven't been trained how to read a statute. The numbers are there for a reason, but if you haven't been told the reason, you don't even think to ask the question. It's not any fault of your own, it's simply not knowing what you don't know. And that gets you put in jail.

Also, that's not even the real problem. The real problem is that law in this country, while based in part on statute, is more properly framed as common or case law based. A statute can look like it says one thing to a layman, but it will almost certainly mean something completely different to a lawyer or a judge. Thus, you can have a statute that says "Conduct X is legal under the following circumstances." And controlling case law that says "Conduct X is legal under the following circumstances -- and here are how we interpret those circumstances based on other case law and what we though the legislators meant." That's a huge and incredibly significant difference. If you don't know the common law, you don't know the law. Messed up, isn't it?

Your point is an excellent example.

The UFA, on its face, does indeed say exactly what you say that it says: "under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be."

But this clause doesn't mean what you're saying that it means. The above clause means that when considering the conduct of an actor under this portion of the statute, the fact finder must consider what is or is not known to the actor at the time. Let me show you an couple examples:

1 - An actor (you) is confronted with a man dressed in blaze orange during hunting season, and holding a shotgun vaguely pointed at you in your back yard. He looks exactly like a well-known murderer, who is famous for sneaking into the back yards of people dressed in hunting clothes, getting them off guard, and then murdering the whole family. You immediately draw your gun and blow him away.

It turns out, unbeknownst to you, that it wasn't the murderer -- it was his twin brother -- a priest in the neighboring township, who was famed for his pacifist ways and penchant for hunting.

Is your conduct legal?

Yes, you believed that the man you were shooting was another, very dangerous man.

Slight change in facts 2 -

You know the murderer has a twin brother who is a pacifist priest who likes to hunt and lives in the next township. You think he's the murderer and you shoot him anyway.

Is your conduct legal?

Probably not. Why? Because the court will likely find that a "reasonable man" in your position would have considered the possibility that you were shooting the wrong guy.

"BUT WAIT", you say, as you jump up in court "There's no "reasonable man" or "reasonable person" standard in the UFA -- I REALLY BELIEVED THAT HE WAS HIS BROTHER!"

The judge will glare at you, your lawyer will blush, cringe and push you back into your seat. And you'll go to jail -- because regardless of what the statute says, nobody gives a shit what you believed for real. All that matters is what a reasonable actor in your position, knowing what you knew, would have done.

Why? Because the "reasonable man" standard is universal and part of our common law. You will almost never find "reasonable man" in any statute because it is common law. It exists in every aspect of the law. You cannot separate the doctine from interpretation of any statute. The question is NEVER "what did so and so believe" regardless of what the statute says. The question is ALWAYS "what did so and so believe, and was that a belief that a reasonable man in his position would have had." This is one of the first things you learn about our common law system during the first year of law school. It's almost a running joke for a professor to start out a first year class with a question about "what does this statute mean" (when he knows full well that courts have decided that it means exactly what it doesn't appear to say) and then tear up the student for assuming that the statute means what it says without checking case law.

So, why have I typed all the above rambling crap?

Because knowing the UFA (or the rest of title 18) is meaningless unless you also know the applicable case law and the unspoken common law. Unless you have access to Lexis, Westlaw, or know how to use the books in a law library (which you don't, I assure you) you're going to get the right answer.

Telling someone to "go read the UFA" and you'll be fine is like saying that a cancer patient will be just fine if he reads a medical textbook and gets someone to prescribe the pills for him. The facts are there, but unless you know how to read them, what they mean, and what isn't being said, they're useless to you.

If the law were really as simple as reading a statute, do you think there would be so many lawyers?

Best,

Rule.