Bank teller who stops robber - fired for it

[Hollywood]

What a great country we live in 

SEATTLE, Aug. 2 (UPI) -- A Seattle bank teller who chased and tackled a would-be robber says he has been fired for his efforts.

Former Key Bank teller Jim Nicholson told KOMO-TV, Seattle, he knew it was against bank policy to not comply with robbers, but he didn't let that stop him from vaulting over the counter and giving chase to a man who had demanded money last week.

The broadcaster said Nicholson, 30, caught up with the alleged robber a few blocks away and tackled him.

"If I allowed him to get away, then he would just continue doing it," he said. "He could come back to our branch. He could go to another bank.

"I had hoped that they would give me a reprimand, or maybe a write-up -- something like that. But it ended up in termination."

He added he had no hard feelings for his former employer.

Key Bank officials didn't return the broadcaster's calls for comment.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/08/02/Bank-teller-who-tackled-robber-gets-fired/UPI-41281249246067/

[GilloD]

Option B is the teller gets shot for resisting and sues the bank. Telling your employees it's OKAY TO VIOLENTLY RESIST ARMED ROBBERS is a bad idea.

[Hollywood]

Option B is the teller gets shot for resisting and sues the bank. Telling your employees it's OKAY TO VIOLENTLY RESIST ARMED ROBBERS is a bad idea.

How the fuck you going to sue the bank unless the bank shoots you? Sure, it should be their policy not to chase after bad guys, but when one actually does it and saves the day, his ass gets fired? Pretty fucking ridiculous.

[demi]

Probably run by Christians, logic usually goes over their heads

[Hollywood]

Probably run by Christians, logic usually goes over their heads

Look another demi troll, what else is new. Write down a 50 point achievement for another troll.

[demi]

Woah buddy, don't go locking the thread just yet

[BobFromPikeCreek]

Guy's a moron. Why would you put yourself in harm's way for a bank's money? Fuck that. Doofus watched one too many super hero flicks.

[Brehvolution]

The bank probably gets more back from insurance than what is stolen.

[Flannel Boy]

The bank doesn't want its employees escalating a situation that may cause harm to customers over money that is federally insured. Maybe a termination is too severe, but the bank wants to discourage its employees from this kind of behavior. If a teller jumped the robber and a customer was shot, the bank would be vicariously liable.

[Hollywood]

Guy's a moron. Why would you put yourself in harm's way for a bank's money? Fuck that. Doofus watched one too many super hero flicks.

Actually the guy who tried to "rob" the bank apparently didn't even have a weapon:

"But he told The Seattle Times that instinct took over when a thin man in a beanie cap, dark clothing and sunglasses pushed a black backpack across the bank counter on Tuesday and demanded money.

Nicholson threw the bag to the floor, lunged toward the man and demanded to see a weapon. The man bolted for the door with Nicholson in pursuit.

He chased him several blocks before knocking him to the ground with the help of a passer-by. Nicholson then held the man until police arrived."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hIv4UvN__tvsr-Jq_P_0lnvX9TTwD99QSNMO0

The fucker deserved to be chased down just for stupidity. Come up in a bank demanding money and not even packing heat, he deserved it.

[Flannel Boy]

At the time the teller demanded to see the robber's weapon, he had no idea whether he had one.

And what is the teller trying to encourage? Robbers to make sure they're fully armed and brandishing their weapons in a crowded bank?

[Hollywood]

At the time the teller demanded to see the robber's weapon, he had no idea whether he had one.

And what is the teller trying to encourage? Robbers to make sure they're fully armed and brandishing their weapons in a crowded bank?

To make sure he's not a bum? Stupid ass robbing a bank without anything on him. I doubt the guy would have chased after him if he had a weapon. If someone tried to rob you and was like 'gimmie all your money' and didn't have anything on him at all, what would you do? Just give him the money like a bitch?

[Tauntaun]

At the time the teller demanded to see the robber's weapon, he had no idea whether he had one.

And what is the teller trying to encourage? Robbers to make sure they're fully armed and brandishing their weapons in a crowded bank?

[Flannel Boy]

To make sure he's not a bum?

And if he wasn't "a bum," and took out a gun and shot someone? The teller could have easily escalated the situation. The bank and the police don't want tellers to escalate things, and they don't want to create the impression that robbers need to point guns at people before they'll cooperate.

If someone tried to rob you and was like 'gimmie all your money' and didn't have anything on him at all, what would you do? Just give him the money like a bitch?

The situations are different. It's not his money and he could possibly be endangering the lives of others in a small, enclosed area with a lot of people.
And anyway, yes--I would give the robber my money. I'd simply believe him if he claimed to have a weapon. The $60 in my wallet isn't worth finding out for sure.

[Diunx]

Thats why vigilantes have secret identities.

[Hollywood]

To make sure he's not a bum?

And if he wasn't "a bum," and took out a gun and shot someone? The teller could have easily escalated the situation. The bank and the police don't want tellers to escalate things, and they don't want to create the impression that robbers need to point guns at people before they'll cooperate.

If someone tried to rob you and was like 'gimmie all your money' and didn't have anything on him at all, what would you do? Just give him the money like a bitch?

The situations are different. It's not his money and he could possibly be endangering the lives of others in a small, enclosed area with a lot of people.
And anyway, yes--I would give the robber my money. I'd simply believe him if he claimed to have a weapon. The $60 in my wallet isn't worth finding out for sure.

If he pulled a gun out and shot someone, what was stopping him from doing that when he walked in the bank in the first fucking place? I don't think its unreasonable if someone is claiming to ROB you, to see if he's legitimately holding a weapon. Shit, anyone can go up to someone and shoot them if they're armed. If an armed robber really wanted to do that, why not just do it in the first place? And if we're talking about endangering lives, what if the guy robbed someone else? He's off the street now, so all those people he could have endangered in the future are safer because of it.

The dumb crackhead came in just wanted some money with a grand plan, and got burned. Asshole got what he deserved, and the teller gets fired for stopping the asshole. What a fucked up world we live in when all that can be thought about is who may or may not get sued. Shit, he should sue the fucking bank for firing him.

[Bocsius]

Not worth the risk. Good that he got his adrenaline rush and all, but eh.. that's why we have insurance and the police.

[Bildi]

Shame he got fired but it could have turned into a dangerous situation for him and others.

Seems like he accepted he'd done the wrong thing in this scenario.

[Flannel Boy]

If he pulled a gun out and shot someone, what was stopping him from doing that when he walked in the bank in the first fucking place? I don't think its unreasonable if someone is claiming to ROB you, to see if he's legitimately holding a weapon. Shit, anyone can go up to someone and shoot them if they're armed. If an armed robber really wanted to do that, why not just do it in the first place?

Two reasons: (1) a robber simply wants the money; he doesn't want to hurt anyone, generally. (2) Armed robbery or aggravated robbery carries stiff penalties. If a robber is carrying a gun, he may not want to brandish it, exposing it to the bank's cameras, leading to a lengthier prison sentence if caught.

And if we're talking about endangering lives, what if the guy robbed someone else? He's off the street now, so all those people he could have endangered in the future are safer because of it.

Banks and the police are worried about the big-picture. They create policies to prevent unnecessary violence.

Shit, he should sue the fucking bank for firing him.

For what? He failed to follow his employer's policies, policies encouraged by the police and the FBI.

[brawndolicious]

Of course they had to fire him.

If some other teller tried this in the future but the robber had a gun, combined with all that adrenaline and fear, then the situation would probably get worse.

This guy didn't do anything wrong and I would actually say that he made a net positive out of this situation by putting the robber in jail.  But if the bank condones his behavior right now, it could make another employee in the future repeat this guy's actions and end up with a lot of innocent people hurt.

[BobFromPikeCreek]

Why would a robber walk through the door and shoot someone immediately? If he had a weapon it would be reasonable to assume he would want to avoid using it unless necessary, and the teller was an idiot for giving him a reason to use it if he had one.

[brawndolicious]

I don't blame the teller.  He was probably a bit stoked by the whole vigilantiness of it and probably wasn't thinking clearly.  I honestly don't know if I would act any better.

[Purple Filth]

Just a cog in the machine of life. Nothing important

[Hollywood]

Why would a robber walk through the door and shoot someone immediately? If he had a weapon it would be reasonable to assume he would want to avoid using it unless necessary, and the teller was an idiot for giving him a reason to use it if he had one.

Yeah why would he use it immediately? If he wouldn't use it imemdiately, why is asking to see the weapon a reason to use it either? He wouldn't use it either if someone asked, its just the same thing. I don't think that qualifies as a reason to use one.

The teller did nothing wrong. If a police officer was in the bank at the same time and chased him down, he would be considered a hero, but this guy gets fucked over for it? Yeah I know, I'll get the canned "but police are trained" response, but no amount of training is going to stop a criminal from doing something crazy in those situations. Arguing against this guy running him down, you could make the same argument for police chasing any criminal down. Yet there's dangerous car chases every day.

I'm glad someone steps up to catch a criminal. He should be applauded, not reprimanded. All these 'what ifs' - yet no one got hurt, the bad guy got caught, the end. I'm sure he'll find another job, since this guy is probably a mini celebrity right now in his area, and a lot of people would like to have a guy who has the balls to step up and do something.

[Akala]

when I was 19, I was robbed at gunpoint working at a blockbuster. there was no point at which attacking the robber ever crossed my mind. I mean, even if you deeply care about the money being taken, there's a 85% chance you will just make things worse. then again, there is the 15% chance they'll flip out and kill/shoot/stab you anyway.

there are situations where I could see trying to take down an armed thief. maybe if they are actually (blatantly) trying to hurt people...but it's only money, and not even the teller's.

being held up is a random situation. you never know exactly what will happen, but just giving them the money easily tends to diffuse most of these situations with the best results. which is why banks tend to have these policies in the first place.

I just can't understand wanting to try to charge someone in that situation.

[Great Rumbler]

no amount of training is going to stop a criminal from doing something crazy in those situations.

Maybe not, but a few bullets usually do the job fairly well.

[demi]

With God on your side, not even bullets can stop you.

[Flannel Boy]

Yeah why would he use it immediately? If he wouldn't use it imemdiately, why is asking to see the weapon a reason to use it either? He wouldn't use it either if someone asked, its just the same thing. I don't think that qualifies as a reason to use one.

I think a robber would be more likely to use a gun in his fucking hand then in his pants. Do you really think irritating an adrenaline-filled robber and forcing him to show you his weapon is not more likely to get someone shot?

The teller did nothing wrong. If a police officer was in the bank at the same time and chased him down, he would be considered a hero, but this guy gets fucked over for it? Yeah I know, I'll get the canned "but police are trained" response, but no amount of training is going to stop a criminal from doing something crazy in those situations. Arguing against this guy running him down, you could make the same argument for police chasing any criminal down. Yet there's dangerous car chases every day.

I can't believe you simply gloss over the fact that tellers are trained to let robbers go and the police are trained to capture them.

And there are times when the police do disengage from dangerous chases when the risks of the chase outweigh the benefits of apprehending a suspect.

I'm glad someone steps up to catch a criminal. He should be applauded, not reprimanded. All these 'what ifs' - yet no one got hurt, the bad guy got caught, the end.

Policies are put in place to deal with the what-ifs. This isn't the only bank, this isn't the only robber, and this isn't the only teller. Just because it works out in one situation, doesn't mean it will simply work out in other situations.

[Bildi]

With God on your side, not even bullets can stop you.

Unless the person with the gun has a better God than you.

[Dickie Dee]

The other option is to incentivise physically stopping robbers and most likely failing while getting shot in the face.

If you want to keep it policy that you by no means should try and stop a robbery, you have to mean it.

[Hollywood]

Yeah why would he use it immediately? If he wouldn't use it imemdiately, why is asking to see the weapon a reason to use it either? He wouldn't use it either if someone asked, its just the same thing. I don't think that qualifies as a reason to use one.

I think a robber would be more likely to use a gun in his fucking hand then in his pants. Do you really think irritating an adrenaline-filled robber and forcing him to show you his weapon is not more likely to get someone shot?

The teller did nothing wrong. If a police officer was in the bank at the same time and chased him down, he would be considered a hero, but this guy gets fucked over for it? Yeah I know, I'll get the canned "but police are trained" response, but no amount of training is going to stop a criminal from doing something crazy in those situations. Arguing against this guy running him down, you could make the same argument for police chasing any criminal down. Yet there's dangerous car chases every day.

I can't believe you simply gloss over the fact that tellers are trained to let robbers go and the police are trained to capture them.

And there are times when the police do disengage from dangerous chases when the risks of the chase outweigh the benefits of apprehending a suspect.

I'm glad someone steps up to catch a criminal. He should be applauded, not reprimanded. All these 'what ifs' - yet no one got hurt, the bad guy got caught, the end.

Policies are put in place to deal with the what-ifs. This isn't the only bank, this isn't the only robber, and this isn't the only teller. Just because it works out in one situation, doesn't mean it will simply work out in other situations.

Okay dude. Next time a crackhead who hands a backpack over to a teller they should immediately give up money, even though he obviously didn't have shit and ran off as soon as the teller punked him out. Sounds like a plan, i'll bring in a NES zapper next time and rob a bank. By bank policy they should give over the money. Or if a 12 year old comes in with a super soaker or nerf gun. Those things shoot a ball per second nowadays! Fork it over!

[Flannel Boy]

Okay dude. Next time a crackhead who hands a backpack over to a teller they should immediately give up money, even though he obviously didn't have shit and ran off as soon as the teller punked him out. Sounds like a plan, i'll bring in a NES zapper next time and rob a bank. By bank policy they should give over the money. Or if a 12 year old comes in with a super soaker or nerf gun. Those things shoot a ball per second nowadays! Fork it over!

How do you know it was obvious he didn't have a concealed weapon (note the word concealed)? The bank doesn't want one of its employees to call a potentially armed robbers bluff. the teller could have easily been wrong.  

And if the robber is the crackhead you say he is, the police would capture him eventually. Crackheads tend not to elude police for long; they don't make for brilliant criminals.

Sounds like a plan, i'll bring in a NES zapper next time and rob a bank. By bank policy they should give over the money. Or if a 12 year old comes in with a super soaker or nerf gun. Those things shoot a ball per second nowadays! Fork it over!

There's a difference between a robber who may have a concealed weapon and a 12-year-old who is holding a toy-gun.
Anyway, the bank wouldn't lose any money, and the police would easily catch a fucking 12-year-old.

[demi]

I got robbed a few years back when I was good and drunk.  A homeless dude asked me for all my money.  I called what I thought was his bluff, and seconds later my ass was thrown up against a wall and I was almost stabbed in the fucking throat.  I lost 6 dollars, and am not stupid enough to try that again.

What a fucking pussy. You should have totally got him in an armbar and made him squeal, like they do on the TV screen.

[Hollywood]

I got robbed a few years back when I was good and drunk.  A homeless dude asked me for all my money.  I called what I thought was his bluff, and seconds later my ass was thrown up against a wall and I was almost stabbed in the fucking throat.  I lost 6 dollars, and am not stupid enough to try that again.

Look at me Hollywood, look at me, here's my 5th post trolling your thread!

 

[Hollywood]

Okay dude. Next time a crackhead who hands a backpack over to a teller they should immediately give up money, even though he obviously didn't have shit and ran off as soon as the teller punked him out. Sounds like a plan, i'll bring in a NES zapper next time and rob a bank. By bank policy they should give over the money. Or if a 12 year old comes in with a super soaker or nerf gun. Those things shoot a ball per second nowadays! Fork it over!

How do you know it was obvious he didn't have a concealed weapon (note the word concealed)? The bank doesn't want one of its employees to call a potentially armed robbers bluff. the teller could have easily been wrong.  

And if the robber is the crackhead you say he is, the police would capture him eventually. Crackheads tend not to elude police for long; they don't make for brilliant criminals.

Sounds like a plan, i'll bring in a NES zapper next time and rob a bank. By bank policy they should give over the money. Or if a 12 year old comes in with a super soaker or nerf gun. Those things shoot a ball per second nowadays! Fork it over!

There's a difference between a robber who may have a concealed weapon and a 12-year-old who is holding a toy-gun.
Anyway, the bank wouldn't lose any money, and the police would easily catch a fucking 12-year-old.

How do you know that it wasn't obvious? He went after him didn't he, and he had nothing, so it must have been pretty fucking obvious right?

How do you know someone with a toy zapper doesn't have a real gun in their jacket or something? You could say that too. The guy made a judgement calll and was RIGHT. The end. Anytime there's a confrontation with a criminal, or anyone, SOMETHING could happen, sure. It's not like the guy had a gun pointed at his head. He was a dumb mother fucker who threw over a backpack.

Criminal loses. Good guy wins. The end. You can throw out if's and but's all you want but he got it right, and should be applauded for taking a stand against these leech ass mother fuckers.

[Flannel Boy]

How do you know that it wasn't obvious? He went after him didn't he, and he had nothing, so it must have been pretty fucking obvious right?

That is circular reasoning.
"It was obvious."
Why?
"Because he went after him!"
Why did he go after him.
"Because it was obvious."

He guessed and he happened to have guessed right. There was no way for him to know for sure whether the robber was carrying a concealed weapon. All that he was going on was intuition--unless he has x-ray vision.

How do you know someone with a toy zapper doesn't have a real gun in their jacket or something? You could say that too.

Well, a robber probably wouldn't be brandishing a toy Nintendo gun if he had an actual gun. But if the robber claims to have a real gun, the teller should just believe him.

The guy made a judgement calll and was RIGHT. The end. Anytime there's a confrontation with a criminal, or anyone, SOMETHING could happen, sure. It's not like the guy had a gun pointed at his head. He was a dumb mother fucker who threw over a backpack.

The policy is in place to prevent tellers from making judgment calls. Why can you not look at the big picture. When teller's use their judgments in these situations, they'll be right some of the time and wrong some of time. When they're wrong, the consequences may be deadly.

[Hollywood]

How do you know that it wasn't obvious? He went after him didn't he, and he had nothing, so it must have been pretty fucking obvious right?

How do you know someone with a toy zapper doesn't have a real gun in their jacket or something? You could say that too. The guy made a judgement calll and was RIGHT. The end. Anytime there's a confrontation with a criminal, or anyone, SOMETHING could happen, sure. It's not like the guy had a gun pointed at his head. He was a dumb mother fucker who threw over a backpack.

Criminal loses. Good guy wins. The end. You can throw out if's and but's all you want but he got it right, and should be applauded for taking a stand against these leech ass mother fuckers.

That is circular reasoning.
"It was obvious."
Why?
"Because he went after him!"
Why did he go after him.
"Because it was obvious."

He guessed and he happened to have guessed right. There was no way for him to know for sure whether the robber was carrying a concealed weapon. All that he was going on was intuition--unless he has x-ray vision.

How do you know someone with a toy zapper doesn't have a real gun in their jacket or something? You could say that too.

Well, they probably wouldn't be brandishing a toy Nintendo gun if they had an actual gun. But if the robber claims to have a real gun, the teller should just believe him.

The guy made a judgement calll and was RIGHT. The end. Anytime there's a confrontation with a criminal, or anyone, SOMETHING could happen, sure. It's not like the guy had a gun pointed at his head. He was a dumb mother fucker who threw over a backpack.

The policy is in place to prevent teller's from making judgment calls. Why can you not look at the big picture. When teller's use their judgments in these situations, they'll be right some of the time and wrong some of time. When they're wrong, the consequences may be deadly.

He may have prevented future crimes by stopping the guy, he even pointed that out. That's not the big picture? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think if the guy felt he was imminent danger he wouldn't have went after the guy. The fact he turned tail when he challenged him, it was pretty much obvious at that point the guy was some crackhead and not an armed robber.

[huckleberry]

Dude got fired...that sucks.  But it had to happen.


I almost got fired from my job for chasing down a shoplifter a few years ago.  The manager explained that by doing so I could injured the guy, which would have opened them up to lawsuit since I was employed there.  The second reason he gave was that I could have been injured myself, which could have also opened up the company to a lawsuit.  

You just can't take the law into your own hands...no matter how cool it feels.  You aren't a dispenser of justice because you are employed somewhere....j

[demi]

Peter Parker would have prevented his Uncle Ben from dying if he had stopped that criminal, too, Cohen. He has a point.

[Hollywood]

I still don't think Hollywood realizes why the guy got fired.

I realize why he got fired, but like the guy himself, I'm wondering why they couldn't just give him some write up or other meaningless crap. Shit, what are the odds someone robs that same exact bank and that same exact guy, and the same situation happens? Virtually none. There's no reason why they had to fire him.

[Hollywood]

Peter Parker would have prevented his Uncle Ben from dying if he had stopped that criminal, too, Cohen. He has a point.

Now you're speaking truth. My n**ga.

[Flannel Boy]

He may have prevented future crimes by stopping the guy, he even pointed that out. That's not the big picture? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The big-picture doesn't involve an single case; it involves a policy that is in place to protect costumers and employees at tens of thousands of banks. If the policy is not enforced here, then, in effect, there is no policy, and consumers and employees will be put at risk.

And, like it would have been that difficult for the police to catch this guy.

I think if the guy felt he was imminent danger he wouldn't have went after the guy.

So we're going to rely on a teller's subjective feelings. Sometimes your intuiotion is right and sometimes it's wrong.

The fact he turned tail when he challenged him, it was pretty much obvious at that point the guy was some crackhead and not an armed robber.

Maybe it was obvious after he challenged him. But the teller lunged at the robber first, well before you can say that anything was "obvious."

from the second news story:

Nicholson threw the bag to the floor, lunged toward the man and demanded to see a weapon.

At this point, there was no way for him to know that the robber didn't have a gun.

[Hollywood]

I still don't think Hollywood realizes why the guy got fired.

I realize why he got fired, but like the guy himself, I'm wondering why they couldn't just give him some write up or other meaningless crap. Shit, what are the odds someone robs that same exact bank and that same exact guy, and the same situation happens? Virtually none. There's no reason why they had to fire him.

What are the odds that someone robs another bank the same way but actually has a gun?  The reasoning behind the firing is not based a single situation, rather on a policy meant to protect all employees and customers of the bank nationwide.

This is about the dude who got fired. No reason to think he would ever attempt to do this again, or would even be in that situation again; so I'm wondering why fire him? Chances are he goes on to have an uneventful rest of his career as a bank teller, and thats the end of it.

[Hollywood]

They fired him because they don't want OTHER employees to pull the same shit.  What if the same thing happened a month later and a customer was shot.  Should the employee in that case be fired if the first one wasn't?

I just don't trust someone stupid enough to rob a bank with my life. If there's a gun pointed at me, then you can't really do anything, but if they're an opportunity to stop the guy, why not take it? Maybe something could happen that endangers other, but the guy could just the same just shoot people in the head after he gets his money anyway. What the fuck does he care? If he's crazy enough to rob a bank, he's crazy enough to do that shit.

I hate to bring up this example, but I wonder what the policy was 8 years ago on people who try to hijack a plane. Surely its more dangerous to those around to try to stop them at that point, but what if they go crashing the plane in a building? What does policy help anyone then? Or it could turn out like DB Cooper and the guy doesn't harm anyone. Who knows? If a guy is crazy enough to rob a bank, he's crazy enough to shoot you dead whenever he fucking wants anyway.

So no, I'm not going to rail into a guy who's only intention was to put the bad guy in jail. Maybe someone could have got hurt if he had a gun, maybe someone could have got hurt anyway if he didn't do anything. Who knows?

[Flannel Boy]

I think you learned about bank robberies from The Dark Knight. Bank robbers rob banks for the money, not because they're insane. And if a robber won't even brandish his weapon, odds are he won't use it--unless he believes he has to.

Who knows?

No one. That's exactly why such a policy is in place, because, overall, it reduces the likelihood of violent confrontations.

[Hollywood]

I think you learned about bank robberies from The Dark Knight. Bank robbers rob banks for the money, not because they're insane. And if a robber won't even brandish his weapon, odds are he won't use it--unless he believes he has to.

Who knows?

No one. That's exactly why such a policy is in place, because, overall, it reduces the likelihood of violent confrontations.

LOL. So earlier you were telling me that by challenging if he had a gun he *could* use it, but now you're arguing odds are he won't use it. Just ... nevermind. The guy is in jail, no one got hurt, the end.

PS - Also I should note, I recall a case where someone robbed a bank, took the bank manager hostage, then killed him. It was a case on Forensic Files, good show. So that stuff does indeed happen.

[Flannel Boy]

LOL. So earlier you were telling me that by challenging if he had a gun he *could* use it, but now you're arguing odds are he won't use it. Just ... nevermind.

You missed the part where I wrote "unless he believes he has to." Like, say, if a cowboy teller challenges him.

[Flannel Boy]

PS - Also I should note, I recall a case where someone robbed a bank, took the bank manager hostage, then killed him. It was a case on Forensic Files, good show. So that stuff does indeed happen.

I don't recall saying bank robbers have never killed anyone. Thanks for creating strawmen.

Now, how exactly would the teller have prevented the manager's death? Oh he wouldn't.

[Don Flamenco]

This thread fucking sucks. 

[Hollywood]

PS - Also I should note, I recall a case where someone robbed a bank, took the bank manager hostage, then killed him. It was a case on Forensic Files, good show. So that stuff does indeed happen.

I don't recall saying bank robbers have never killed anyone. Thanks for creating strawmen.

Now, how exactly would the teller have prevented the manager's death? Oh he wouldn't.

LOL, okay man. You just spent a post saying that bank robbers aren't crazy, and only want the money. I was just giving you an example thats not the case. I rather have my life in my own hands or the hands of someone making an effort to stop them other than hoping the robbers themselves don't shoot me in the fucking head.

[Flannel Boy]

PS - Also I should note, I recall a case where someone robbed a bank, took the bank manager hostage, then killed him. It was a case on Forensic Files, good show. So that stuff does indeed happen.

I don't recall saying bank robbers have never killed anyone. Thanks for creating strawmen.

Now, how exactly would the teller have prevented the manager's death? Oh he wouldn't.

LOL, okay man. You just spent a post saying that bank robbers aren't crazy, and only want the money. I was just giving you an example thats not the case. I rather have my life in my own hands or the hands of someone making an effort to stop them other than hoping the robbers themselves don't shoot me in the fucking head.

Fuck. As a class, they are not crazy; they just want the money. Some are, but your cowboy teller won't fucking stop them. I will simply repeat, "if a robber won't even brandish his weapon, odds are he won't use it--unless he believes he has to." The bank's policy is in place to make sure that bank employees don't give robbers a reason to believe they have to use their weapons.

[Bocsius]

Hollywood reminds me of Beardo when he tries to argue politics. Comes across as someone still quite wet behind the ears.

[Hollywood]

PS - Also I should note, I recall a case where someone robbed a bank, took the bank manager hostage, then killed him. It was a case on Forensic Files, good show. So that stuff does indeed happen.

I don't recall saying bank robbers have never killed anyone. Thanks for creating strawmen.

Now, how exactly would the teller have prevented the manager's death? Oh he wouldn't.

LOL, okay man. You just spent a post saying that bank robbers aren't crazy, and only want the money. I was just giving you an example thats not the case. I rather have my life in my own hands or the hands of someone making an effort to stop them other than hoping the robbers themselves don't shoot me in the fucking head.

Fuck. As a class, they are not crazy; they just want the money. Some are, but your cowboy teller won't fucking stop them. I will simply repeat, "if a robber won't even brandish his weapon, odds are he won't use it--unless he believes he has to." The bank's policy is in place to make sure that bank employees don't give robbers a reason to believe they have to use their weapons.

Ok man, I'm done arguing. I just disagree. If there's an opening to stop someone like this, and I was in the same position, I would do it.

You say its not likely they kill anyone if everyone cooperates, but I say just the same its not likely anyone gets killed either if someone demands to see the weapon. And I also say its likely that they don't even have anything in the first place if they don't show they have something to threaten with.

Maybe they do just snap and start shooting if someone asks to see it. Then again, maybe they just snap if they get their money and get paranoid about someone describing them. I don't think my scenario that people get shot afterwards anyway is any less likely than yours where just challenging them to show a weapon would cause violence.

[Flannel Boy]

It's not about "snapping." A loaded gun in someone's hand is more likely to do damage than if it's tucked inside his pants. Why call the robber's bluff? Just to save the bank's money--which is already insured?

and

Bank robbery deaths 2006

7,272 incidents
13 deaths
10 were perps
0 were customers
1 was an employee
1 was a law officer
1 was a guard

The policy works.

[Flannel Boy]

Would you trust stats over a teller's gut? You may be willing to take that chance, Cohen, but I'm not.

[Hollywood]

It's not about "snapping." A loaded gun in someone's hand is more likely to do damage than if it's tucked inside his pants. Why call the robber's bluff? Just to save the bank's money--which is already insured?

and

Bank robbery deaths 2006

7,272 incidents
13 deaths
10 were perps
0 were customers
1 was an employee
1 was a law officer
1 was a guard

The policy works.

Do you have stats on how many deaths there have been when bank robberies have been attempted to be stopped? In this case, there wasn't any. So it stands to reason bank robbers usually don't shoot anyone, regardless of what happens.

[Flannel Boy]

what if the teller didn't stop him and the robber used the money to fly the bank into the empire state building?

That makes no sense. This took place in Washington state, so the likely target would be the Space Needle.

[BobFromPikeCreek]

It's not about "snapping." A loaded gun in someone's hand is more likely to do damage than if it's tucked inside his pants. Why call the robber's bluff? Just to save the bank's money--which is already insured?

and

Bank robbery deaths 2006

7,272 incidents
13 deaths
10 were perps
0 were customers
1 was an employee
1 was a law officer
1 was a guard

The policy works.

Do you have stats on how many deaths there have been when bank robberies have been attempted to be stopped? In this case, there wasn't any. So it stands to reason bank robbers usually don't shoot anyone, regardless of what happens.

You seem to think there are a large number of bank teller heroes.

[Flannel Boy]

Do you have stats on how many deaths there have been when bank robberies have been attempted to be stopped? In this case, there wasn't any.

Since we don't often hear about these kinds of news stories, it's safe to assume the vast majority of bank tellers don't try to prevent the robberies.

So it stands to reason bank robbers usually don't shoot anyone, regardless of what happens.

But I thought bank robbers were crazy?

[BobFromPikeCreek]

I'd bet money that the one dead employee was a hero.