A customer was killed in a bank by a security guard when he tried to leave the bank in defiance of the cordon surrounding an armored car waiting at the gate to transport cash.

The killing happened on April 7 at a commercial bank in Shenyang in the northeastern province of Liaoning.

It was reported that the man had withdrawn some money from the bank and was going to leave when the armored car arrived and the escorts forbade any entry or exit.

The man told the escorts he had to leave immediately because he had some urgent business to attend to. But the guards stopped him and threatened to shoot him. The man continued walking toward the door saying, "You wouldn't dare shoot me." One of the guards then shot him in the face.

The event has caused outrage among the public, including media commentators, people on the streets and netizens. They all cried "caojian renming," an idiom literally meaning "taking a human life as if it were not worth a straw". Many said that the security guard had no reason to shoot the unarmed man since he posed no danger.

The critics are right. Both witnesses' words and the bank monitor video show that the man in no way threatened the guards other than with verbal exchanges. Under the law, bank cash escorts can use force to stop an attempted robbery and can fire at the suspect only when their own lives are threatened.

The police are investigating the case but all information available so far indicates that the man was not a robber and was not in any way dangerous. It is almost certain that it was a case of "caojian renming ".

More importantly, the sealing of the bank entrance during business hours (usually for 15 or 20 minutes) is questionable. Both the bank and the company on the mission of escorting cash are commercial enterprises. They are not law enforcers.

Who gave them the power to cordon off part of the pedestrian walk to forbid passage?

They infringed on the civil rights of passers-by and robbed the bank customers of their personal freedom for their own commercial benefit. Why should the pedestrians and customers sacrifice their time and right of way to meet the interests of the two enterprises?

They could well arrange for the cash transport to be done before or after business hours to avoid causing inconvenience and limiting the freedom of customers. If this leads to a rise in operating costs, the addition is part of the intrinsic cost of doing business.

If the armored car's occupation of the pedestrian walk is unavoidable, a sign of apology should be set by the cordon line to show respect for pedestrians' right of way. And the guards should try to maintain a friendly attitude toward passers-by.

In fact, what is usually seen in front of banks throughout the country is fully armed guards aggressively warning anybody who accidentally walks too close to the cordon line. Passers-by try to keep a distance from them and not show any sign - a glance or a hand movement - that might be misread as ill intent.

In the April 7 killing, the escort company said the guard who shot the bank customer was "in a highly nervous state" because its employees "work under great pressure every day".

This explanation is even more frightening. The public's lives are thus placed in uncertainty. Who knows when a bullet will fly out of the gun barrel because of an involuntary press of the trigger by a guard "under great pressure"?

Both banks and escort companies should remember that they are equal parties with citizens in business and society. They have no right to bully - let alone kill - common citizens.

E-mail: liushinan@chinadaily.com.cn

(China Daily 04/18/2007 page10)