NY man shoots at bank robber.

[The Unknown 1087]

Bank Customer Shoots At Bank Robber

AMHERST, N.Y. - Police say a bank customer with a valid pistol permit has fired several shots at an armed robber fleeing a bank he'd just robbed in suburban Buffalo.

Investigators told The Buffalo News the robber displayed a handgun during a heist Friday morning at a Citizens Bank during which about 10 bank employees and patrons were ordered to put their hands up.

As the robber left with an undisclosed amount of cash, they said a customer followed him outside and fired four to six shots at him behind the bank. The robber apparently was not hit and got away. A search continued Friday evening.

Police said the customer had a permit to carry a gun and would not be charged. They said New York law in some cases allows a civilian to use deadly force to stop an armed robber from fleeing the scene.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/loca...obref=obinsite

For the bolded part...WTF is that? That's ok in NY which isnt the greatest but in other states thats not allowed........i would have thought they wouldnt allow that

[Emptymag]

Keep in mind that this is being relayed by a reporter. Also keep in mind that just because "police" said something, does not mean that it is 100% factual.

[Metz]

Wow! Didn't know that about NY. Bad idea anyway, though. The citizen faces possible legal jeopardy over someone else's [insured] money. Not millions, probably just few large ones. Not to mention - he fired several shots and apparently never hit the target. Where the hell did those bullets end up? Bottom line - fail.

[tl_3237]

If it were me and the robber is fleeing I'll do everything I can to be a good witness but, barring intervening exigencies, I would NOT attempt use of deadly force.

That being said, in Pa we have case law from the Pa Supreme Court in Kopko v. Miller, 586 Pa. 170, 185 (Pa. 2006) :

"We note that the power of Sheriffs to arrest for crimes committed in their presence is no different from that of a private citizen. In Commonwealth v. Chermansky, 430 Pa. 170, 242 A.2d 237, 239 (Pa. 1968), we reiterated that "a private person [***24] in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. And in Pennsylvania we have [**775] always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified." However, we narrowed the types of felonies for which the rule was applicable and held 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.


Id.at 240. See Commonwealth v. Corley, 316 Pa. Super. 327, 462 A.2d 1374, 1379 (Pa. Super. 1993) ("we hold that a citizen's arrest can be made for a breach of the peace that is personally observed by the arrestor."), aff'd on other grounds, 507 Pa. 540, 491 A.2d 829, 834 (Pa. 1985) (declining to rule on the issue).

Could you shoot legally? - maybe. Should you shoot? - NO [IMO]

[Gun]

http://www.acslpa.org/LAWS-RelatingToGuns-PA-09-02.pdf

Go to page 4. Ch.2

508. Use of force in law enforcement.

(b) Private person's use of force in making arrest.

[F16vipers]

The Fleeing Felon Rule...I believe that's a federal law but I'll have to doublecheck...IMO it was still reckless for that guy to open fire like that...especially since he couldn't hit the target anyway...

[tl_3237]

http://www.acslpa.org/LAWS-RelatingToGuns-PA-09-02.pdf

Go to page 4. Ch.2

508. Use of force in law enforcement.

(b) Private person's use of force in making arrest.

That section wouldn't apply to fleeing felons as in the NY case because deadly force use is restricted:

18 Pa CSA 508(b)(1) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.

[ErSwnn]

No doubt, a bad move to take shots in that situation. But it leads me to wonder.....what would happen had the citizen pulled his gun during the robbery to effect a citizen's arrest? Personally I'd think that to be an equally bad idea unless the criminal was actually shooting people. Just wondering how that pans out with law.

[knight0334]

That section wouldn't apply to fleeing felons as in the NY case because deadly force use is restricted:

This one would probably apply though. Then add on the Commonwealth v. Chermansky 1968 ruling.

18 Pa.C.S. § 508: Use of force in law enforcement

(d) Use of force to prevent suicide or the commission of crime.--
(1) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person from committing suicide, inflicting serious bodily injury upon himself, committing or consummating the commission of a crime involving or threatening bodily injury, damage to or loss of property or a breach of the peace, except that:
(i) Any limitations imposed by the other provisions of this chapter on the justifiable use of force in self-protection, for the protection of others, the protection of property, the effectuation of an arrest or the prevention of an escape from custody shall apply notwithstanding the criminality of the conduct against which such force is used.
(ii) The use of deadly force is not in any event justifiable under this subsection unless:
(A) the actor believes that there is a substantial risk that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the commission or the consummation of the crime is prevented and that the use of such force presents no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; or
(B) the actor believes that the use of such force is necessary to suppress a riot or mutiny after the rioters or mutineers have been ordered to disperse and warned, in any particular manner that the law may require, that such force will be used if they do not obey.
(2) The justification afforded by this subsection extends to the use of confinement as preventive force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.