Patron foils PNC bank robbery.

[Berncly]

"At this point, police were told, a customer inside the bank pulled a firearm and demanded the suspect to drop the bag and lay on the floor.

The suspect did as he was ordered, police said, and then jumped up and fled from the bank into a wooded area."

WE are not the police - now he goes on to rob another day and/or be caught and live off our support.
He was armed - is deemed a threat - shoot to neutralize the threat - preferably dead!

No.
To justify the shoot there needs to be an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.
It could even be argued that the CC escalated the incident and put everyone at risk of a potential shootout.
If you are armed and witness a retail establishment robbery, you should only get involved if it has turned violent or is about to turn violent.
You will also need to justify your use of force after the fact, and you may be charged if you are unable to justify your shoot.

[scruff]

No.
To justify the shoot there needs to be an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.
It could even be argued that the CC escalated the incident and put everyone at risk of a potential shootout.
If you are armed and witness a retail establishment robbery, you should only get involved if it has turned violent or is about to turn violent.
You will also need to justify your use of force after the fact, and you may be charged if you are unable to justify your shoot.

I'd like to live in a country where criminals worry about guys like this "sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong". EVERY gun owner that believes in the concept of deterrence should applaud guys like this. You're right, he wouldn't have been justified in shooting the perp, but I imagine he was saying "Give me a reason!"

[Berncly]

I'd like to live in a country where criminals worry about guys like this "sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong". EVERY gun owner that believes in the concept of deterrence should applaud guys like this. You're right, he wouldn't have been justified in shooting the perp, but I imagine he was saying "Give me a reason!"

I agree.
But we get a lot of new CC traffic here, and we have a responsibility to keep them informed and out of jail.
Otherwise you get the guy that shot the hatchet shoplifter et al.

[2DogsBarking]

My error on thinking the perp was armed ------Oh well.

Still prefer him dead.

[abner13]

Would be OK in Texas , not in PA. He'll probably lose his LTCF.

[Iron Sights]

PNC will now put up "no guns" signs because the customer endangered the employees and other customers my confronting the robber.

Wells Fargo already has a notice on their door that firearms are not permitted. I only went in to pay my real estate taxes.

[Noah_Zark]

PNC will now put up "no guns" signs because the customer endangered the employees and other customers my confronting the robber.

How about "No hoodies, no facemasks, no sunglasses" while they are at it?

<sarcasm>

Noah

[Walleye Hunter]

How about "No hoodies, no facemasks, no sunglasses" while they are at it?

<sarcasm>

Noah

That sign is already posted at my local Santander branch.

[Boots_DE]

PNC will now put up "no guns" signs because the customer endangered the employees and other customers my confronting the robber.

Where I bank I open carry all the time and I know others do too. Lacking a posted 'no guns' sign on the door, the bad guys would have to assume that armed customers may be inside which could be a hazard to their well-being.

Should the day ever come that a 'no guns' sign be posted, the possibility of a bank robbery there goes up exponentially since that works to assure the bad guys that no one is around to foil their plans.

It seems to me that NOT posting a sign on the door is the wiser thing to do!

[GunLawyer001]

Our tort laws should hold property owners liable if they disarm everyone without providing alternative security.

If your local bank dimmed the lights and required every customer to wear sunglasses, they'd be liable for everyone who tripped on the rug. Because they would have increased the chances of that happening, and it was obviously foreseeable that it could happen. Same goes for creating another "gun-free zone" and not providing an armed guard to take up the slack.