Re: Patron foils PNC bank robbery.
Quote:
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.
Odd that doesn't apply to speed bumps on a highway.
Re: Patron foils PNC bank robbery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GunLawyer001
Our tort laws should hold property owners liable if they disarm everyone without providing alternative security.
I agree, that same logic should hold true for school security. (AKA the coward cop who hid in Florida)
Re: Patron foils PNC bank robbery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roger Kipwell
PNC will now put up "no guns" signs because the customer endangered the employees and other customers my confronting the robber.
That'll piss off the armored truck guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GunLawyer001
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.
Bars and taverns have been doing this before the lightbulb was invented.
Re: Patron foils PNC bank robbery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Walleye Hunter
That sign is already posted at my local Santander branch.
and, American Heritage Federal Credit Union
Re: Patron foils PNC bank robbery.
PNC has a sign "please remove hats and sunglasses" I remove my sunglasses so I can see better but leave the hat on.
Re: Patron foils PNC bank robbery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
STBear
PNC has a sign "please remove hats and sunglasses" I remove my sunglasses so I can see better but leave the hat on.
I guess I can leave on my fake beard and nose?
Re: Patron foils PNC bank robbery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
STBear
PNC has a sign "please remove hats and sunglasses" I remove my sunglasses so I can see better but leave the hat on.
That's why we should all own burkas.
Re: Patron foils PNC bank robbery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carson
If there was no threat to life, why get involved in saving the bank’s insured money, at personal risk to yourself?
Robbery is a threat to life. It is a forcible felony in which you can legally be killed in the act of, and even if you flee and person announces his/her intent to arrest you.
Re: Patron foils PNC bank robbery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Berncly
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.
The threat of life/limb occurred at the very moment the act of robbery was committed.
Read Chermansky 1968.
You can be killed for merely fleeing after committing one of PA SC's enumerated violations if you announce the intent to arrest the felon, and you cannot immediate effect an arrest.
If you can kill a fleeing felon, you can certainly kill them in the act thereof.
PA SC ruled these acts as "normally causes or threatens death or great bodily harm." (their words)
Quote:
We therefore hold that from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private person in order to prevent the escape of one who has committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason, murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery, common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which normally causes or threatens death or great bodily harm.[3] We also note that for the use of deadly force to be justified it remains absolutely essential, as before, that one of the enumerated felonies has been committed and that the person against whom the force is used is the one who committed it or joined or assisted in committing it. Commonwealth v. Duerr, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 484, 45 A.2d 235 (1946). If the private citizen acts on suspicion that such a felony has been committed, he acts at his own peril. For the homicide to be justifiable, it must be established that his suspicion was correct.
Re: Patron foils PNC bank robbery.
Black letter law is NOT controlling. It would be useful to look up the case law but more importantly, the jury instructions, where that decision has been used in a defendant's trial where that decision has been used as the foundation for the self-defense claim. Might fly in Jefferson County :), Philadelphia County? :D :D :D