OMG! Someone Stopped a Bank Robbery! With a Concealed Gun! OMG!

The People’s National Bank of Troy, Missouri isn’t like most banks. Unlike just about every other bank in the state, there’s no Beretta 92 with a red slash through it on the front door. Instead, as stltoday.com tells it, their door has a message that says, “Management recognizes the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as an unalienable right of all citizens.” Not bad, huh? Unfortunately, Donald Lee either didn’t notice or figured it was just window dressing when he walked in planning to knock the place over . . .

But the bank staff takes that whole Second Amendment thing kinda seriously. So much so that the bank’s president was packing a gun.

(W)hen the robber walked out of the bank a short time later with a red bank bag full of cash, maybe he shouldn’t have been surprised that bank president David W. Thompson followed him out to the parking lot. Thompson watched the masked robber get in a Ford pickup parked in a handicapped spot up front, then pulled his Colt .380 handgun and pointed it at the man.

Thompson and another armed bank employee then held the stick-up man until police arrived.

But despite the praise coming in from around the country for the bank and its president, it seems the foiled robbery — cue ominous music –  “raises questions.” At least that’s the basis for a story by fox2now.com “story” on Missouri’s concealed carry law.

It’s been the law for several years. It basically allows people to carry concealed guns in public. It’s still a controversial issue.

People are packing. Guns can be found with thousands of Missourians these days. The state passed a concealed carry law in 2004, but the debate is still raging.

Except that it’s not. The local yokel reporter just took the opportunity to examine the, um, burning issue — complete with dire blood-in-the streets-warning — after a object lesson on why packing heat is a good thing.

Claiming that there’s still a “raging debate” over concealed carry in the Show Me state is kinda like saying that chins are still wagging over the repeal of prohibition. It’s just media speak for “we’re taking this unambiguously positive story and creating a pseudo controversy to fill a little space and challenge a law we really aren’t crazy about.” It’s a mystery why local TV news continues its slow, steady decline.

 

30 Responses to OMG! Someone Stopped a Bank Robbery! With a Concealed Gun! OMG!

  1. avatarST says:

    Headline from the future:

    “A serial killer stopped by one of his intended victims who packed a pistol. Despite this good development there is still a debate in the fossilized remnants of mainstream media about how to go about banning guns in America for their own good. Meanwhile, crime has declined again for the 10th straight year since Right To Carry was passed according to the FBI………..”

  2. avatarTim says:

    So how was the bank manager’s life at risk after the robber had turned tail and was getting into his car? What if the circumstances resulted in the bank manager shooting the robber as he was driving away?

    I’m a gun nut, and I’m not sure that this qualifies as a justifiable deployment of a weapon by a civilian with a CCW. Had he pulled the weapon or shot the guy in the bank while his own life and the lives of the employees and customers were at risk it would be one thing, but once the robber is out the door and getting in his car to leave how are those lives at risk any longer?

    • avatarpcrh says:

      In Texas, you can use lethal force to protect or retrieve your property. I don’t know about MO, but maybe they have a similar law.

      Texas Penal Code Title 2, CH: 9
      SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

      Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
      (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
      (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
      (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

    • avatarfred says:

      I’m with you on this, Tim.

      With respect to Matt below if its true this was legal under MO law, and with respect to the bank manager for his courage, I would have let the robber walk.

      I’m training and giving a lot of thought to CCW, but before you carry, I agree with Robert that you have to think and plan and practice scenarios as part of that training, and the legal defense after- so heres my bottomline:

      My priority
      #1 defense of family,
      #2 defense of self,

      #3 defense of those innocent victims who are in imminent threat of death or injury,
      assuming I have the means to do something about it, and it doesnt compromise #1.

      Defense of someone else’s property (money) is way down the list,
      and if it could involve any un-needed risk that might negate my ability to do #1 and 2,
      I’m giving it a pass every time. Its only money after all.

      Just a thought experiment: What would happen if the cops rolled up and saw some big bald dude like the manager, or an OFWG like me pointing a gun at an ‘presumed innocent’ elderly-looking citizen parked in a handicapped spot?

    • avatarLeo Atrox says:

      Other than the law potentially affording citizens of MO the right to use lethal force to retrieve property, it is also possible that they have a “citizens arrest” law that permits the brandishing of a weapon in order to affect compliance from an armed criminal.

      I sure as heck wouldn’t pull a gun on a guy when he no longer poses an imminent threat; but there it is. The option may be available to the folks of Missouri … It certainly isn’t a legal option here in Illinois.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      I’m always amazed to go on gun sites and see the handful of people who argue against detaining a criminal so that they can be arrested. Much better to let him go and enjoy the spoils of his crime, eh?

  3. avatarMatt K says:

    He did everything by the book according to MO law. He was the bank president & that was his property. We are allowed to protect our property in the state of Missouri. Great job!!

  4. avatarTaurus609 says:

    Is it just a coincidence, or maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this guys mug shot look a lot like the CU professors photo two stories down!

  5. avatarDerek says:

    @Tim (Am I the only one having issues with the reply button?)

    It it not ilegall to attempt a citizens arrest, armed or not. Nor does your life have to be in danger to do so. He didn’t run out there and just start shooting at the guy. He went out there to arrest the guy for robbery. If the guy had ran, then that would’ve been the end of it. If the guy had attacked the bank manager during that then the bank manager would’ve been justified in shooting.

  6. avatarJoshua says:

    Yay for my home state.

  7. avatarjwm says:

    Omg, blood in the streets because people can legally carry concealed. Wait, that’s only happening in places like Chicago where you can’t carry if you’re law abiding. I’m seeing a pattern here, less violence where it’s legal to pack and more violence where it’s not.

  8. avatarTim says:

    Intersting, certainly isn’t that way in Ohio

    • avatarMark says:

      Ohio does not permit the use of deadly force to protect mere property, but they have come a long way: licensed concealed carry is legal, even in places which serve alcohol as long as you’re not drinking and one no longer has to flee their own home, place of business or vehicle when threatened by a violent criminal. You can’t shoot someone for stealing your TV, but if they’re in your home with their mitts on it, you ask them nicely to leave it alone and they turn on you, they’ve suddenly entered an entirely new legal realm.

    • avatarDerek says:

      Yes, it is. What the Bank Manager did would be completely legal in Ohio. Again, it was just a citizens arrest while armed (legal). He didn’t go out to shoot the guy, he went out to stop the guy. He didn’t just start firing on the truck from the doorway of the bank. He went out to stop the guy. If the guy had attacked him, then he would’ve been completely clear to shoot.

      A near identical case happened in Blacklick just this past summer. Residential area, Guy A notices someone, Guy B, breaking into his neighbors car at night. Guy A goes out (armed) to tell Guy B to beat it. Guy B turns on Guy A with a screwdriver and tries to stab him. Guy A shoots Guy B. Guy A was never charged. Guy A didn’t shoot him for stealing or vandalizing. He didn’t just start shooting from his doorway. He shot Guy B for trying to kill him with a screwdriver.

      Confronting criminals is not illegal.

  9. avatarHAVE GUN says:

    @Tim (Am I the only one having issues with the reply button?)

    I ain’t Tim, but this will not appear below your post Derek.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      I haven’t had any issues with replies, either on my PC or my phone. Try clearing your browser cache and then restarting your browser. That frequently fixes all manner of weird behavior on the web.

  10. avatarjake45 says:

    What let the guy go so next time he will hurt someone, use some of his new cash to upgrade on his firepower. The bank manager is good citizen

  11. avatarRalph says:

    No lethal or deadly force was applied in this case by the banker. Deadly force requires force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death. Pulling one’s piece does not qualify as deadly force; pulling one’s trigger does.

    In the defense of my property, I would threaten the use of force, including deadly force. Actually shooting somone, however, is a whole different level of force, and I would not do so except to protect my person or the person of a family member or close friend from great bodily injury or death. YMMV.

    • avatarNathan says:

      Test.

    • avatarGyufygy says:

      In the non-”recovery of property” states, doesn’t that end up being something of a bluff? And if they call it, what do you do?

      Curious to see how you would handle it, not being smart ass.

    • avatarJake in AK says:

      Not sure abou MO, but in Alaska, presenting a weapon is considered deadly force, even if you don’t shoot.
      Not saying what this guy did was wrong, I’d say he did a great job, but up here he would have been using deadly force.
      Of course it still would be totally legal up here too so….

      In any event, yet another great DGU that didn’t even require a single shot fired.

    • avatarMike in NC says:

      I have been told, but have not tried to verify that NC is the only state in the union with zero provision in law for any type of “citizens arrest”.

  12. avatarJD says:

    Can anyone tell me whats going on with the gun in TV behind the reporter. Is that some kind of cap gun, or did some graphic artist try to put a revolver cylinder inside a Beretta?

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Good eye. That’s a Daisy Model 617X .177 CO2 pellet/BB pistol, and when closed, yes, it’s modeled on a Beretta 92.

      This picture might look familiar. (Sorry, it’s huge, but I thought it amusing that I found the exact source image.)

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        Yep. The media is showing a Beretta – style pellet gun in their concealed carry graphic. That’s pretty damn clueless.

  13. avatarTom Collins says:

    A .380? Really?

  14. avatarBrick says:

    Anyone else wonder why the hell they were interviewing a pastor for his views on the matter? Doesn’t really seem like a credible opinion considering the topic.

    Yay Fox

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      While the whole story was clearly a “slow news day” thing, I really don’t think there was any real bias shown in who they picked, although you could make an argument about bookending the pro-gun guy with two anti- guy segments.

      In any case, in my experience it goes something like this: They hit up a half dozen or so likely folks for “man on the street” interviews, and then pick the two best to present the two sides. By “best” I mean some combination of most presentable, most articulate at stating their side, easiest to cut up (without losing the point) to fit the allotted time in the story, etc.

      I think they presented the pastor’s views not necessarily because he’s a pastor, but because he was a good representation of the anti- side. You never know, he may have even been the only anti- person they found that was willing to either state an opinion and/or go on camera.

    • avatar16V says:

      It’s the local FOX affiliate, so if you can weave some religion into alarmist much ado about nothing, and combine with with a flag, some non-issues, and maybe some more fear of darkies, you have a Murdoch jackpot.

      One of the 12 million reasons not to watch local tv news. Let alone FOX.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.