4 Good Samaritans Take Down Bank Robber In Portersville PA

[RamboLiberal]

PORTERSVILLE (KDKA) — A handful of Good Samaritans tackled an armed bank robber.

-----

“When my co-worker pulled up, that froze him and then I was able to just take him down and then that pretty much ended it,” said one of the men who did not want to be identified. “He was pretty much spent at that point.”

The four men realized the suspect had a gun in his pocket. They disarmed him and sat on top of him until police arrived.

-----

One of the men had a license to carry a firearm and pulled out his weapon on the suspect.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/04/29/officials-investigate-bank-robbery-in-portersville/

[Logical]

1. And the handgun no doubt helped convince the suspect not to try to pull his gun. A perfect example..

of a DGU when no shots were fired.

[HankyDubs]

13. no doubt?

lmao!

It's almost like you were there! Except you weren't and have absolutely no idea what happened.

There was a smart car involved in the incident, so because it suits my agenda I'm going to say that the suspect didn't pull his gun because he was afraid of the smart car. So this is an example of a DSCU. A defensive smart car use.

[spin]

2. Some here would have predicted that the individual with the concealed weapons permit ...

would have pulled out his weapon and shot an innocent bystander or himself.

Real life is boring and those with concealed weapons permits are far more responsible and rational than those who fear them imagine.

Obviously with as many as ten million people licensed to carry concealed there will be a few instances where a legally concealed firearm is misused but those are very rare.

[rfranklin]

3. Just like in the Bible when the Good Samaritan pulled his gun...

and saved the Jew.

[cleanhippie]

7. WTF?

:shrug:

[lawodevolution]

4. Those who deny that this happens are unrec-ing

[Bold Lib]

5. The horror.

[DWC]

6. Citizens protecting Citizens - the American way of life. n/t

[petronius]

8. What a poorly-written article. It doesn't even mention how many children were slaughtered in

the crossfire, or whether the vigilantes survived their inevitable gunshot wounds when the police showed up and mistook them for crooks. :shrug:

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Ahahaha

[WatsonT]

11. +1

Also suspiciously absent was the fact that the criminals almost certainly snatched the guns away and used them on the innocent bystanders.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. Haha !

[Hoyt]

10. Sounds like unarmed citizens did most of the work.

[HankyDubs]

12. They disarmed him and sat on top of him until police arrived.

The gun was in the pocket of the suspect...and he was tackled, not forced to surrender at gunpoint.

The gun people want to call this a DGU, but it would be far more accurate to say that this was a DSCU...a Defensive Smart Car Use.

[Upton]

14. No..you're wrong again..

One of the men had a license to carry a firearm and pulled out his weapon on the suspect.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/04/29/officials-investigate-bank-robbery-in-portersville/

Perhaps in the future you should read the entire article before commenting..

[HankyDubs]

15. i did read the article

and nowhere does it say that the suspect was disarmed at gunpoint. In fact it says the opposite.

But never let the facts interfere with your agenda.

EDIT: And I'll go even further. The person in question here deserves praise becaus he didn't start a gunfight with the suspect, blasting away on the street or inside the bank.

[rrneck]

16. It's there. Next to last srntence I believe. nt

[HankyDubs]

17. the sentence is there

your agenda-driven assumption is not.

My agenda driven assumption (Defensive smart car use) is just as valid as yours.

He was chased down with the help of the smart car and tackled.

And again, thanks to the gun owner (the lawful one) for not firing his weapon in the bank or in the street.

[rrneck]

18. What assumption is that? nt

[HankyDubs]

19. the assumption that

a gun was needed to subdue this individual. He was chased down with the aid of a smart car and tackled. Defensive Smart Car Use.

[rrneck]

20. When did i assert otherwise? nt

[HankyDubs]

21. so you weren't saying anything at all

ok, fine.

[rrneck]

22. I was telling you that you were wrong

about the article in question. Here's s tip. Counter punching only works when there's something there to hit. Without that it's called flailing.

[HankyDubs]

23. but I'm not wrong

I read the article, the article doesn't contradict me. Nowhere does it say the suspect was disarmed at gunpoint. In fact it says that he was subdued when he was tackled. The quote in the article was to the effect that he was exhaused from being chased by a smart car, and then tackled. I'm right. This was a DSCU--a defensive smart car use.

"Counter punching only works when there's something there to hit"

So you're nothing? I didn't say that. You need to work on your self esteem.

[rrneck]

24. When did I say you were wrong

about your interpretation of the events? The path to knowledge winds it's way through the valley of patience grasshopper.

[HankyDubs]

26. check post #22

"I was telling you that you were wrong"

And I'm not wrong. This was a DSCU.

[rrneck]

27. So what's your point?

What are you trying to prove here?

[HankyDubs]

28. my point

other than allowing you to make yourself look silly...is that this was not a DGU, as is claimed on this thread. According to the facts as presented in the article (which is an incomplete report) this was not a DGU, it was a DSCU.

This was an example of Defensive Smart Car Use. How many times do I need to repeat myself before you guys understand?

[rrneck]

29. I don't think so.

Really read the subthread.

[HankyDubs]

30. I've read the whole subthread

and neither one of you did anything but say that I was wrong. Then when I proved I was right, you started talking about grasshoppers. This conversation is dull, I'm done with it.

All evidence at hand indicates that this incident was a DSCU.

[rrneck]

31. You're still wrong.

I think it looks like a " DSU" too. You are wrong about agenda driven assumptions on my part. (See post 17). It seems that you are so intent on rooting out ideologies that conflict with your own you slide off the rails into bigotry. Like I said- flailing. Who looks silly now?

[Hoyt]

32. Gun toters can't stand the thought that it doesn't take a gun to handle many situations.

[rrneck]

33. Bigots can't stand thought. nt