Bank teller catches robber, then gets fired

Escaep

Escaep

Tank
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
0
Going by the book is always the right thing, no matter what. :rolleyes:

In this situation, the bank teller clearly knew that no other employees or bank patrons were at risk.

Fire the hero? Idiots. If he was killed doing it, then fire him.
 
The guy loves the thrill of the pursuit. He should become a cop.
 
I can't comprehend the mentality of the people that fired the man who lawfully subdued the would-be robber.
 
No harm no foul. Shouldn't be fired.
 
No harm? He endangered the lives of everyone in that bank at the time. I can think of few things more deserving of being fired over.
 
Endangering something is not harm unless harm actually happens.

I guess you're not familiar with the expression "no harm no foul"

It means that even if someone did something wrong, if there was no harm done, you could consider him doing nothing wrong at all.
 
The harm was in the fact that everyone in there had their risk of injury or death skyrocket because of that mans decisions. I'd fire him for that too.

Not only that, but he deliberately disobeyed a requirement of the bank's conduct policies, which he received training to do. So even if you believe "no harm no foul," which is bullshit in most cases anyways, he still should be fired for misconduct by willfully breaking a safety regulation when specifically ordered not to.
 
He made a decision in a high adrenaline/panic situation. I'd say the guy deserves slack.

And yes I know "no harm no foul" is not the way to go in most situations. I never said it was.
 
i was about to disagree with you krynn until i read:

"It's something I almost look forward to. It's a thrill and I'm an adrenaline-junkie person. It's the pursuit," he said.
Click to expand...

ya..ummm...
 
No excuse, they're trained to deal with it. Same reason a cop should be fired for beating up a suspect after a chase. They're trained to deal with that pressure and have the resposibility to perform their job even under such conditions.
 
Comparing chasing after a robber to beating a suspect is stupid and I'm leaving this stupid argument you stupid dog.
 
I accept your withdrawal and declare victory in my name.
 
Oh look everybody a dog won an argument, raise your hand if you give a shit.

/me prepares shotgun
 
Vegeta relax. Its not the worst thing in the world to lose an argument to a dog. Sometimes they can bark really loudly and scare you into submission. Other times they can beat you with logic and rational arguments on an internet forum. Its nothing to be ashamed about.
 
I agree with the bank on this one. The money's insured, so they're not sweating the financial loss. Their concern is for the safety of the patrons and employees and stunts like this are a fast track to someone getting killed. If I were another teller at the time, I'd be a little mad at the guy.
 
That bank policy was put into place because banks routinely hire armed criminals to rob them to increase their funds behind the scenes... and it facilitates things to go more smoothly most of the time!

Yep.



Or not.
 
the man should have been let go with like a month's vacation pay and options for unemployment. thats how i see it. criminal is behind bars and not robbing another one of that guys bank, amirite?
 
I should have read the article. I just saw this:
he ran down a would-be bank robber
Click to expand...
I assumed the guy had already robbed it, ran out of the building, and was running down the street, and the teller chased him down in the street, which would mean that people in the bank were no longer in danger.

But the teller threw the money bag down, leaped at the robber and demanded to see a weapon? What kind of dumbass does that? He basically asked the guy to shoot people or GTFO. I definitely side with the bank. He put everyone in the bank at risk if the man would have brandished a firearm.
 
Techincally he was breaking the banks policy and procedure, just like if you stole money. You'd be expected to be fired.

He was endangering everyone else when the police could have easily tracked the robber down via bait money and surveillance or any other thing that bank uses.
 
VirusType2 said:
Going by the book is always the right thing, no matter what. :rolleyes:

In this situation, the bank teller clearly knew that no other employees or bank patrons were at risk.

Fire the hero? Idiots. If he was killed doing it, then fire him.
Click to expand...

VirusType2 said:
I should have read the article. I just saw this:

I assumed the guy had already robbed it, ran out of the building, and was running down the street, and the teller chased him down in the street, which would mean that people in the bank were no longer in danger.

But the teller threw the money bag down, leaped at the robber and demanded to see a weapon? What kind of dumbass does that? He basically asked the guy to shoot people or GTFO. I definitely side with the bank. He put everyone in the bank at risk if the man would have brandished a firearm.
Click to expand...

Oh, how the turn tables.
 
Krynn72 said:
No harm? He endangered the lives of everyone in that bank at the time. I can think of few things more deserving of being fired over.
Click to expand...

In all fairness I think it was the robber endangering lives.

Running him down merely ended that danger.



Edit: In the UK we are increasingly having this attitude that people in general shouldn't do a damn thing to protect themselves and rely soley on the tax collection service, sorry, Police, to deal with things.


I'm sorry but the Police and courts are almost entirely post-event response and maybe a smidget deterrence.

At the end of the day its up to every single person to chose for themselves how to best handle a dangerous/criminal situation. I'm not going to dial up 999 and wait for the plods to come along while some 'yoof' is stabbing me for my mobile. I'm gonna make sure the ****er cant endanger my safety or anyone else's.

The bank teller did the right thing, I only hope someone else feels the same and gives that man a job.
 
nurizeko said:
In all fairness I think it was the robber endangering lives.

Running him down merely ended that danger.



Edit: In the UK we are increasingly having this attitude that people in general shouldn't do a damn thing to protect themselves and rely soley on the tax collection service, sorry, Police, to deal with things.


I'm sorry but the Police and courts are almost entirely post-event response and maybe a smidget deterrence.

At the end of the day its up to every single person to chose for themselves how to best handle a dangerous/criminal situation. I'm not going to dial up 999 and wait for the plods to come along while some 'yoof' is stabbing me for my mobile. I'm gonna make sure the ****er cant endanger my safety or anyone else's.

The bank teller did the right thing, I only hope someone else feels the same and gives that man a job.
Click to expand...

It's bank POLICY not to do anything and you realize that most bank robberies aren't even hostile. 9 times out of 10 someone passes a note and asks for money, therefore the robber wouldn't have been endangering any lives UNTIL someone were to confront him.

Also unless your banks in the UK have no security features whatsoever, that robber is going to get caught.
 
*pats Krynn*

You're never going to be a good guard dog Krynn with that attitude
 
cleverendeavouR said:
Also unless your banks in the UK have no security features whatsoever, that robber is going to get caught.
Click to expand...

I have a cousin who is in prison for robbing 7 banks in one afternoon. The only reason he was caught was because of an eyewitness. But jesus christ, 7 banks.

He used something that looked like a real gun I think and only did this because he was in deep with someone over drugs and felt like he was out of options.
 
Tyguy said:
I have a cousin who is in prison for robbing 7 banks in one afternoon. The only reason he was caught was because of an eyewitness. But jesus christ, 7 banks.

He used something that looked like a real gun I think and only did this because he was in deep with someone over drugs and felt like he was out of options.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that doesn't mean that he NEVER would have been caught, I'm sure he would have later on down the road.
 
Vegeta897 said:
I guess you're not familiar with the expression "no harm no foul"

It means that even if someone did something wrong, if there was no harm done, you could consider him doing nothing wrong at all.
Click to expand...

oh so like a failed attempt at murder? i mean the bullet just missed his head but you know, no harm done. water under the bridge and all that :laugh:

surely your not serious? i mean kudos to BankGuy for running him down, i dont think he should be fired... but that "expression" is pretty retarded, and using it reflects badly on you - and although i dont know you, im sure your not a retard.

edit: just read that you dont believe it applies to every situation. but if pressed id still have to say its a lacklustre saying
 
Hm. The thread title is rather misleading. There's a difference to the guy robbing the bank and then the guy chasing him afterward compared to a guy coming in to rob the bank and then getting chased out of there without getting anything.
 
He was rightfully fired, but if I saw the opportunity I'd do the same (probably). He should use this opportunity to find the right line of work, police force of something, he has the balls for it.
 
i work in a bank and used to be a cashier myself, everything youre trained for says that you just give them the money and let them run. you would seriously have to be a GIANT RETARD to chase after a robber, or even confront them in any way.
 
my mother lost her job at a bank for something almost as stupid.

Her brother was getting divorced and his whore of a wife was BURNING through all HIS cash (she never worked a day in her life), so he went to my mother to have her transfer HIS money to a new account she can't reach.

Apparently that was against their policy, so she was asked to leave. I hate the woman so much, I even tell their children, my cousins, how much of a c*nt she is.
 
xcellerate said:
my mother lost her job at a bank for something almost as stupid.

Her brother was getting divorced and his whore of a wife was BURNING through all HIS cash (she never worked a day in her life), so he went to my mother to have her transfer HIS money to a new account she can't reach.

Apparently that was against their policy, so she was asked to leave. I hate the woman so much, I even tell their children, my cousins, how much of a c*nt she is.
Click to expand...

Wait.. Transferring money in a domestic dispute = fired? What was their policy? Do you know?

If a bank teller can't transfer your money so someone stops taking it all, then who can..?
 
Yeah because if something happens that whole bank is liable, not just the one person who did it.
 
After actually reading the story I still stand by my viewpoint. If the bank robber had a weapon he would have shown it. Why wouldn't he have? It would only be an advantage.

The police dude is like "You should comply when confronted by a dangerous criminal" but what part about the robber was dangerous? He didn't threaten any violence, or display any intention of violence, or show any capability of violence (not presenting a weapon of any kind when robbing a bank is definitely an indication that he has none to threaten with, back to my first point again).
 
Vegeta897 said:
After actually reading the story I still stand by my viewpoint. If the bank robber had a weapon he would have shown it. Why wouldn't he have? It would only be an advantage.
Click to expand...

I doubt he was thinking about this, but I think by not showing his weapon there is no proof he had one. So when he goes to court they can't say he had a deadly weapon, it might lighten his prison sentence some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Great story about a guy who gets $100,000 from a junk check - read
2
Replies
44
Views
25K
Darkwolf
Darkwolf
Back
Top