Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Bank Teller Stops Alleged Robber, Loses Job

"(CNN) -- Jim Nicholson could've just handed over the cash. Instead, he gave the would-be robber a run for his money -- and paid for it.

The 30-year-old bank teller said the suspect, dressed in black and wearing sunglasses, walked up to his counter at the Key Bank branch in suburban Seattle, Washington, demanding he fill the man's bag with cash.

"So I grab the bag ... I threw it on the floor," Nicholson told CNN Radio. He said he demanded the robber show him a weapon. When he realized there was none, Nicholson said, he lunged at the robber, chased him down the street, pinned him down and waited for the police.

That was Tuesday of last week. He lost his job Thursday.


"Policy violation," Nicholson said. "Basically, we are supposed to comply with any robber that would come in. We're supposed to just give him the money and let him go -- and obviously I did not do that."

Probably sounds counter-intuitive and unfair, right? The guy prevented a crime, risked his LIFE to protect his employer from being robbed and his reward for his bravery is to get FIRED?!

Goddamn right he got fired, and he deserved to.

Every bank has that exact same policy for a very good reason. If the employees "just give them the money and let them go", NOBODY GETS KILLED!

The banks are insured! When a robber holds up a bank, the only loser is the insurance company!

The customers don't lose any money.

The banks don't lose any money.

The shareholders don't lose any money.

It's just the insurance company who loses money when they reimburse the bank for the amount stolen. Why do they lose money? BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS MODEL! The insurance companies go to a bank and say "Look. For a recurring fee, we will bet you that you will never be robbed. We are so confidant that you will never be robbed that we will cover your losses if you are robbed."

In casino terms, the insurance companies are The House. They win 99% of the bets by having a steady revenue stream without having to do a goddamn thing! Occasionally, rarely, they have to pay off a bet. They don't give a fuck. They still make an assload of money and they get to raise the insurance rates on the victim!

In fact, it is the insurance companies who INSIST that the banks they insure have a policy to "give them the money and let them go". As long as the banks adhere to that policy, the insurance company is only on the hook for the amount in the teller's drawer (heh heh) when the robbery occurs.

But if the bank has a policy of resisting robbery attempts, or some Rambo-fucktard-wannabe-teller decides to be a movie star hero, a whole lot of bank employees and customers could get killed dead! Not just "merely dead", but "really most sincerely dead!" Or permanently disabled. Or distressed, ya know, emotionally.

Do you have any fucking idea how exponentially the civil lawsuits explode when collateral victims of a bank robbery gone bad realize that they can sue A BANK?

This guy was a fucking idiot. The only thing he was doing was risking the lives of everyone around him to protect the most microscopic, infinitesimal, minuscule fraction of a giant insurance companies assets.

I'll bet you he's a gun owning, conservative, Republican.


emawkc said...

I'm with you. Good riddance. Who needs responsible grownups working for your company. Who wants people who can look at a situation, size up the variables, employ a little critical independent thought, make a responsible decision based upon all the data and then act upon that decision.

Fuck that. Better to have people who don't give a shit, who are just there to collect the paycheck. Give me a list of policies. I won't challenge it.

Can you imagine where we would be as a society if people started challenging policies? Hell, people might grow up and start trying to take care of themselves (and their employers). That's how anarchy starts, fer cryin' out loud.

It's better to make an example of people who think independently and act heroically. Fire them and excoriate them publicly to discourage others from following their example.

Xavier Onassis said...

But he wasn't a "responsible grownup" nor did he "act heroically".

Independent of bank policy, a correct assessment of the variables would be "give him the money and we all go home to our families today. Challenge him, and some of us could die."

Money is easily replaceable. Human lives, not so much, really.

Banks have been dealinh with robberies for hundreds of years. They pretty much know what the fuck they're doing. More so, apparently, than a 30 year old teller who's seen too many movies.

emawkc said...

Somehow he was able to ascertain that the perp was unarmed and therefore not a danger to himself or anyone in the bank.

Xavier Onassis said...

emaw - yes, he was able to ascertain that by challenging the robber by saying "Show me a weapon!" That was incredibly stupid and he endangered everyone in the bank by doing so.

Guns are easy to conceal. As are knives and razors and box cutters and pepper spray, and ninja throwing stars, and sharp pointy sticks. You never know what the fuck someone might be concealing.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that all of his coworkers support his firing. No one wants to work next to a loose cannon like that.