TexasCHLforum.com

Russell wrote:I'm just ranting because it's not even the bank situation, it's practically everything in our entire lives. We are taught as a society that in confrontation, back down and let the other person have his way. All that does is strengthen the bad guys and weaken the feeble that much more.

True enough.

The mentality you describe helped the Nazi's take over Europe and was instrumental to the 911 hijackers.

Before 911, even "self defense experts" said... if you're hijacked on an airplane... just go along with the BG's demands. Today everybody knows that advice is WRONG.

Although I will say that as a CHL I don't ever plan on dieing for the bank's money. It's theirs, their responsibility, and they have insurance.

Naturally, if my life or someone else’s life was in danger I would consider taking appropriate action.

Hey Russel, i'm kinda with you on the whole deal. My original thoughts on this matters is about the bank employee exposing you to a possible deadly situation. TX_ Jim also touch on it in his experience at the bank with his other employee. In my original post, i talked about that bank robbery where the suspect was outside a closed door holding an arriving employee hostage and the employee inside opened the door to let them in "for whatever reason."

That is where my decision making issues come in. Am i going to let someone expose me to potential harm. Like Russel said, I am not worried about the money; but if we are seperated by a barrier, why should I let a suspect gain access to me physically.

Suppose you were in the bank lobby and robbers got caught between the buzz in doors with another person/employee. DO you let them in...what is the banks policy then.....do I have a say since I'm in the mix now???? Is anyone going to touch that buzzer if you standing there with your firearm ready????

Hmmm...it's hard to say what i would do in that situation. I would assume self preservation would kick in and I would most likely not let them in. As for policy I would assume that the Bank would support that decision in that fact that by allowing them in you are indangering more people. My reaction may be different if i were the one outside at gun point.

I think this scenario should be tweaked just a little. Most banks have their doors open to the public during business hours which means a would be robber would not need a hostage to gain access during those hours. In this scenario, i would assume you are talking about just before opening or just after closing in which case most banks have a two person policy in which no one can open or close the bank alone. Where my wife use to work the policy stated that employess should remain in their vehicle until their opening partner arrives...and then open the doors together. I assume so one can watch their surroundings while the other opened the door. That being said, I know for a fact that this policy was not adhered to. My wife never had to worry about this she is on the lending side and never had to open or close...well she closed once because the branch manager could not do it one evening but that time they did have two closers.

If a criminal has a hostage outside the bank, and says he will kill the hostage if you don't let him in, what to do?

If you let him in, there's a good chance he will kill the witnesses, or possibly be satisfied with raping the women.

If you don't let him in, what's the likelihood that he will commit murder (on camera) when it won't get him what he wants? It is certainly possible, but I don't think it's likely.

- Jim

TX_Jim wrote:the teller became belligerent with the would be robber...saying things like your kidding me right!

this teller would have been fired from my bank, I have seen it happen.

TX_Jim wrote:Bank policy states that employees are not allowed to carry firearms.

I disagree, my policy is clear (very clear) they don't want you too, but if licensed by state, it's not prohibited.

I am aware that if I pull my gun, for whatever reason, I'll be fired.