Shut up, chill out and give them what they want. That’s the advice those who consider civilians too ill-trained and inept to be trusted with the means of armed self defense offer up to anyone with the temerity to ask what they’re expected to do if they find themselves staring down the barrel of a gun some day. And despite the best efforts of the dedicated gun grabbers in our northern suburbs, there are still some Canadians who don’t think much of that advice. Carl Fraser, a Torontonian, is apparently one of them . . .
Carl was in TD Canada Trust bank in West Toronto yesterday when – against all odds – two armed hold-up men announced their intention to make a withdrawal.
The robbers — one armed with a semi-automatic handgun, the other brandishing a rifle — stormed into the bank shortly after it opened at noon at the corner of St. Clair Ave. W. and Mould Ave., near Runnymede Rd. Five or six customers were in the bank.
Noon? They jumped over the counter, grabbed some cash — and, apparently, some dye packs — and ordered everyone on the floor.
Customer Jose Santos, 51, was in the bank manager’s office with his 17-year-old son and wife when the robbers invaded. “I was very scared because he was waving the gun at everybody,” Santos said.
That’s when Fraser confronted the two Dillingers, telling them he didn’t believe their guns were real.
“He basically looked right down the barrel of the gun and told the robber he didn’t have the guts to shoot him,” said Rick, another customer who was too frightened to give his last name. “He’s just one of those guys that wasn’t going to take s— from anybody. It was unbelievable.”
Then he jumped one of them.
As the two wrestled, the robber allegedly fired his handgun and the bullet hit a 22-year-old female bank employee in the leg, according to Earl and the customer named Rick, who was standing next to Fraser when he challenged the robbers. “I was focused on staying out of the line of fire,” said Rick, 45.
The robbers, seeing their plan quickly going south, beat feet.
Incredibly, Fraser who earlier challenged the thieves chased after the armed men, confronting them in the parking lot. He again struggled with the robber with the handgun, who then allegedly shot him in the stomach, Earl said.
Thankfully, Fraser’s apparently going to survive following surgery to reduce his sudden increased lead intake problem.
“These people are very armed and very dangerous,” said (Toronto PD Staff Inspector Mike) Earl, who warned residents not to approach them if spotted.
Got that Canucks? They’re not just armed. They’re very armed. And here it comes:
Earl made clear that confronting armed bank robbers is never a smart thing to do. “Cooperate with the robbers because it’s the money that they’re after,” he told reporters while standing outside of the bank. “We advise the banking industry, employees and customers … to just turn your money over.”
You didn’t think he’d let a chance to pass that on go by, didja?
TD spokesperson Mohammed Nakhooda wouldn’t say how much money the robbers got away with. “We have extremely robust security systems in place,” he said. “Clearly this is an unfortunate incident and situation and we’re going to be working very closely with the police on this investigation.”
Apparently not robust enough, Mohammed. Maybe he can tell his clients how they intend to stop the next pair who decide to waltz into one of their banks with guns that are illegal in Canada to commit a crime that’s also illegal in Canada.
“They did get away with some money,” Earl said. “It’s called a takeover style robbery. They just barged right into the bank. It was just a brazen, unbelievable act of cowardice.”
Perhaps the brazenness had something to do with the fact that the holdup men, operating in the Great White North, had zero expectation of being confronted by anyone with a gun. Just a thought.
was this guy trying to prove his manhood? his family was safe, money insured, and customers were safe. then he chases the two armed robbers into the parking lot. that would be dumb even if he had a gun.
Agreed; the money wasn’t his problem, and it was highly unlikely that they were about to start executing everyone there.
I don’t like the odds even at highly unlikely. Having a gun on my person. Those odds I like. I love ya Canada but the social experiment is going a tad off kilter.
Oh, I would have been far more comfortable having a gun. I just wouldn’t have felt the need to use it at that point. They had the jump on him.
Agree with both. In Minnesota, the local LE’s would probably charge you with precipitating a shooting by drawing your piece (in this case). Now, if the perp started shooting, you’re legal and hopefully you’re not the first target. Rules, rules, rules.
Really? I would say self defense is pretty clear cut (inside the bank). Bad guys with deadly weapons, reasonable fear for serious bodily harm and loss of property. Once he pursues them outside the bank, it gets to be a gray area.
This didn’t happen. I have it on good authority that it’s illegal to carry a pistol or a rifle into a bank in Canada. And since we have many instances of gun free zones effectively stopping the bad guys, at least the ones literate enough to read the signs, we know that this has to be a fabricated story. maybe a movie company was filming a crime movie and people misunderstood what they saw.
LOL! awesome.
The picture reveals the usual suspects …
‘xactly what I was thinking…
Something’s wrong though. He’s not holding the gun sideways.
I see a lawsuit in Fraser’s future: he is the proximate cause of the leg wound of the bank employee.
Loving it here in Florida…you can carry concealed into your local bank without an issue.
Loving here in CO (recent nonsense notwithstanding)… you can carry openly into your local* bank without an issue**.
* Offer void in City and County of Denver.
** Well, there might be an MWG call or you might be asked to leave. But it’s legal.
As soon as we got CC here(also open is ok) a young man walked into the bank with a 1911 on his hip. Thats when you know you live in a free state, Randy
Given the much better tort system in Canada it’s unlikely Fraser will be sued. OTOH, given their totally upside down firearms laws, if he *had* had a gun and used it defensively a civil suit would be the least of his worries as the OPP woulda tossed his ass in jail…but at least not in an adjoining cell with the robbers since they’d be either on the loose or assuming room temperature.
Stupid move? No doubt. Still, I admire his cahones taking on 2 armed men. He’d be the guy with the biggest brass in the cemetery.
If it was your leg that got shot you might think otherwise?
Even if you do have a weapon handy and intend to confront an armed robber it’s best to do so from some form of cover.
How is robbing a bank a “brazen, unbelievable act of cowardice.”? I’d think it takes a pretty good sized set to actually go through with pulling that off.
I think he was referring to their brazen use of firearms. Polite thieves would have forgone the weapons so that everyone has a fair chance. Or at least provided matching firearms to the bank customers to make it a even fight.
The fact that the thieves insisted that the balance of firepower be tilted in their favor constitutes “cowardice.” Dudley Do-Right would be appalled. “Unbelievable” indeed.
It’s incredible. What we have left after the government and banks get through with us, we’re supposed to roll over and give to thieves. Under this disarmament bull shit we are transformed into prey for all. The risk is all on our side of this equation.
*sigh*
I thought everybody knew……men are not shot (accosted in Canada, eh?) in banks for robbing banks, but shot (ditto, eh?) so that banks shall not be robbed. Okay (eh)?
Yet another nail in the coffin of the “truth” about guns. How this dribble has been OK’d for publication is beyond me. Oh no, wait – it isn’t beyond me atall, the reason is because page views trump any other factor, including sensible advice and responsible reportage.
I hope to Christ (and Xenu, and the FSM) that I am never in that kind of situation with somebody as ignorant as Dan Zimmerman. I know you think that you are the shit just because you carry a gun, but actually you don’t have the right to escalate a situation like this and put other lives at risk because you want to live out your pathetic John Wayne fantasy. Let me re-phrase that actually – you do have the right, because you have the right to do anything you like – but along with the right comes the responsibility. Because of this tard a completely innocent woman was shot in the leg, and I hope Fraser is sued into the ground because of it. Frankly all involved were lucky that was the only injury. Even the dumbest gun nut should realise that a close quarters firefight against multiple perps (who have made no escalation of force), surrounded by civilians, is ****ING STUPID.
This should NOT have been a DGU, and it is for shame that any moron would think so, let alone write about it. It doesn’t do much for the pro-gun debate when such stupidity is published in such a high profile forum either to be honest.
Humjob, you made parole! Good for you. You know, if you just stay away from schoolyards and keep up with your monthly Depo injections, you’ll have no further trouble.
If I had to pick one poster here who I knew would immediately jump to defend the honour of Dan, regardless of how moronic, irresponsible and downright dangerous his advice is, then it would have been you ralph – and you do not disappoint. Dumbass birds of a feather flock together, as the saying goes.
I also like how you, for no reason at all, make me out to be a child predator – is that some kind of Freudian slip on your part?
hmmmm, with all due respect I think you should go back to my post and re-read it, slowly and carefully, and with a little luck you’ll get my drift. It’s pretty simple, really. (hint, it’s not so much to do with guns as with bank robbery itself)
I also think I can safely conclude that you’re not from Missouri, as well.
I really don’t see much room for ambiguity when the headline is “It should have been a DGU” and then what follows describes a common or garden bank robbery. Plus a few little digs at anybody in authority daring to suggest that the best response is to just give them the money, of course.
There were no hostages, no prior shooting, and given the perp didn’t just blow away Mr. Fraser when he stepped up and called him out I think we can safely assume that they didn’t want it to become that kind of robbery either. Far and away the best outcome would have been for them to get their money and everyone could go home to their families without any additional lead in their body.
I don’t like to invoke Hollywood as an example of real life, but in this case it is demonstrative: in Heat Robert DeNiro’s character wants to do things without bloodshed, but once one of his team kills a security guard then the stakes are raised and he may as well execute the others. If you want to start having gunplay then there WILL be consequences, and innocent people may well be hurt so you can feel like a big man. There are of course times when violence is needed, but this was absolutely not one of them.
Hmmmmmmm just got back from a long tour in Giveupistan.
Hmmmmmmm can’t make a rational argument, so he/she just repeats things he’s/she’s heard on MSNBC then resorts to personal attacks.
Apparently, Hmmmmm is also a Scientologist. Which explains a lot. L Ron Hubbard made a bet that he could invent a religion that ignorant people would follow – and we get Hmmmmm
Here’s how superior Hmmmmm is…
Meet Xenu:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
It is an awesome tribute to the power of ignorance that anyone believes one word of this cr@p.
LOL – so you are saying that the best course of action is NOT to let them have their money and walk away so no one gets hurt? You are saying that a firefight in which innocent people are shot is the better, more rational outcome?
Life must have been very hard for you growing up as a crack baby!
There is no point in engaging in a debate with someone who believes the Earth is populated by mentally programmed alien ghosts who came here in DC8s.
– not making that up, this is what Hmmmm actually believes –
http://altreligion.about.com/od/mythologicalfigures/a/xenu.htm
It’s always tough to beat out ralph for the daily “Armed Intelligentsia” award but DJ my boy – I think today you have a very strong chance!
So you aren’t a Scientologist?
“So you aren’t a Scientologist?”
And the slowest horse crosses the line…
Since you now have both brain cells engaged perhaps you would like to re-read what I wrote and see that I am right? I’ll understand if you don’t though – we wouldn’t want you to blow any more fuses up there, now would we?
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html
Hmmm,
While replying to people who seem to only like thread based conflagrations is not exactly my favorite pasttime, the statement made by “This Should Have Been A DGU” is relatively simple.
Had this man been armed him tackling the suspects would be replaced with them being shot. Most criminals do not want to even risk being shot so usually flee at the prospect.
Your assertion that a “John Wayne” fantasy is reckless is pretty ignorant of the fact that no one is bound by law to expect criminals to follow any sort of rules. You could gamble on a peaceful robbery, give everything they say, and still be marched into the vault and executed.
Furthermore, your argument that there is a time and place for armed resistance versus surrender does not take into account that the cops never do the latter and that these actions have caused far more loss of life than that of the enraged victims resisting their attackers. This only offers limited pause in police “acting to uphold order” and does result in injuries, deaths and damages. But civilians should hesitate more even though they are the ones being directly victimized, as you are saying. Excellent idea. Now, I hope your pizza you order your robbers doesn’t get there before the police do.
And finally, your argument is also based on the same disarmament argument that anti gunners use. Doing nothing and not getting hurt is all well and good but if these fine gentlemen had walked in and started shooting then a clamor of how bad guns are would start instead of people realizing that you can’t rationalize being defenseless.
Do not defend the robbers and armchair quarterback their intentions; it seems redundant since the time is passed and questionably wise at best. If you want to bet on the mercy of people desperate enough to risk enough prison time for robbery and theft that murder charges aren’t what they want to additionally risk, fine by me. Just don’t expect everyone to be a defeatist like yourself. Tactical evaluation is one thing. Dismissing the idea as you did is another thing entirely.
No, I think most are saying the best option is to NOT let them have their money and NOT let them walk away because they’d have been shot. Preferably to death. Next preferably without wounds because the sight of armed resistance makes them run away. Next preferably with a wound, because that may lead to them trying to sue you back.
Your preference though is apparently to keel over.
No reason to go cowboy. Protect yourself and those around you until the bad guys beat it whether they have the money or not.
All these self-defense tips from governments are making my head spin. If my bank is robbed, am I supposed to p1ss my pants and puke? And when a woman is being raped, is she supposed to just turn the money over? Or is it the other way around. It’s all very confusing. Maybe both governments should get together and pass a ten thousand page Treaty for the Preservation of Scumb@gs.
We always here the line: “cooperate with the robbers, give them your money, its the money they’re after, etc.”
Somehow, this time around, I got thinking… Que bono? Aside from the sociopaths ill-gaining cash.
Disarming the citizenry leaves them dependent on the established law enforcement industry, allowing it to not only perpetuate, but to grow and further become entrenched, eventually becoming large enough to influence policy.
“It was just a brazen, unbelievable act of cowardice.”
No, it was a rational response to the breakdown of the rule of law in Canadastan.
Gonna show what a geek I am here but….
Anybody else start thinking of when your playing a role playing game (which I actually haven’t done in MANY years but for some reason it stuck with me) like Dungeon’s & Dragons where when confronted with a potential illusion (only your DM knows for sure) you can chose to have your character disbelieve (thereby avoiding its affects). Only problem is it only works if you are correct (and in this case its not a real gun)…
Comments are closed.