Robbing a bank - hostage legality question

[One]

Ok so I'm lying here in bed and I started thinking about this scenario...

You're in a bank just before you leave 5 heavily armed disguised thugs enter and you become one of many hostages. They muck everything up start a small bin fire which alerts the man in the place across the road and then the back gets surrounded by police.
Some time goes on when you are rewarded the opportunity to leave, perhaps you are a trade for the thugs to get a limo ride out to a jet to take then to Albania.

Now here is my question, say the thugs decide they are going to start shooting hostages unless you personally go back into the bank.

What happens here? Would the police make you go back in, could they even do that? Say they kill a few hostages and then in court say they would have freed everyone if you had gone back in, would victims families then be likely to sue you?

I don't think I would go back in the bank so it would be nice to know where I stood legally should the scenario every crop up.

 

[One]

No


No



LOL wat?

Ate you sure though? If my wife was killed because one guy was too chicken to go back into the bank I would personally blame him and try to sure him!

 

[One]

This is pretty silly, but:

You would have no duty of care towards your fellow hostages and there is no general duty to rescue in English law (and even countries that do have it waive the duty if there is physical danger), so you'd have no legal liability (civil or criminal) for refusing to go back in.

The police couldn't force you back in either as they would have no legal power to do so. Any officers who tried could be charged with a few criminal offences and be sued stupid.


Police can't hold you indefinitely - you have to be charged within 96 hours or released. If you are charged, you'll be refused bail by the courts until you identify yourself. If you never do and are eventually imprisoned, you'll serve the full sentence as you couldn't be released on probation.

Thanks for this seems to be a good answer. I don't have to worry about going to the bank anymore then

 

[One]

The actual question is why while robbing the bank they decide to stop and set a small bin on fire

They also 'mess everything up'. I presume that means they gain entrance to the bosses office and throw his in tray like everywhere.

I borrowed part of the plot from Dog Day Afternoon.

 

[One]

So you admit that you wouldn't go back in, but then you would try and sue someone else if they didn't if the shoe was on the other foot?

Your own life should be more valuable to you than someone elses.

I wouldn't risk my life to save someone elses, but obviously I would want someone to risk their life to save mine if the roles were reversed. This is a pretty normal reponse, I'm not sure why you're rolling your eyes at me.

 

[One]

OMG! You'll never guess what just happened when i was at the bank...

 

[One]

That is very much your opinion. If I had kids I would most certainly say that their life would be more valuable to me than my own. I would also say that many people put their own personal safety and lives on the line as part of everyday life for someone else. The army and emergency services do this regularly. Therefore I think your assertion has to many exceptions to be a rule.

Your family is you in some sense though, losing them would have more of a negative impact on you than the fear of dying, this just isn't true of random people in a bank though so my point still stands

I would happily give my own life up if it prevented a child being subjected to pain and death. I think a lot of people would feel similarily.

Feel, do. They are pretty different words. I can guarantee you would sacrifice your life to save some kid you don't know from pain.