Seattle Bank Teller Fired for Chasing, Apprehending Robber

[zerocool84]

At one of my old jobs we got robbed multiple times. No way in hell was I going to chase down someone who robbed us at gunpoint. A couple bucks is not worth my life.

 

[guyver01]

It's most bank policies to not resist when someone attempts a holdup.

The guy was probably fired for violating bank policy. Altho i doubt a single violation would warrant a termination, we don't know what else is on this guy's history at the bank... this coulda been "strike 3" for all we know.

 

[bonkers325]

employees arent suppose to chase robbers for insurance, liability, and safety reasons. the bank doesnt want to be responsible for an employee's death if he/she decides to play hero.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Hands down they did the right thing by firing him. The bank no doubt has a well-established policy that employees are to fully comply with robbers. This rule is for the employee's protection and also insulates the bank from liability if an employee is hurt or killed while resisting. If the bank extended leniency to this guy it would defeat the whole purpose behind the policy.

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Man, people are such cowards nowadays. Look at all of these limp-wristed people.

This




Its a whole generation of pussys that are coming through. China is training their youth to be strong, western nations are letting their youth become weak.

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: sao123
well im just going to say it...

al lbank tellers should be licensed as federal marshalls or state police.
if someone walks into a bank during hours and attepts to rob it... he should be shot dead or apprehended by the teller.

when my mum worked in the bank 30 years ago, they trained her to use a shotty... she was one of the first female tellers

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, he did go against company policy but the outcome was positive so why would you fire him? Doesn't make any sense IMO.

I ran a red light this morning and made it to work on time (outcome was positive). Nobody was hurt as there was nobody in the intersection. I don't think a cop should give me a ticket, do you?

Just curious, if the teller had charged the guy, the guy pulled out a gun and killed 4 other people on the street (or in the bank) and didn't kill the teller, should the teller have been fired then?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, he did go against company policy but the outcome was positive so why would you fire him? Doesn't make any sense IMO.

I ran a red light this morning and made it to work on time (outcome was positive). Nobody was hurt as there was nobody in the intersection. I don't think a cop should give me a ticket, do you?

yes


Just curious, if the teller had charged the guy, the guy pulled out a gun and killed 4 other people on the street (or in the bank) and didn't kill the teller, should the teller have been fired then?

no.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, he did go against company policy but the outcome was positive so why would you fire him? Doesn't make any sense IMO.

I ran a red light this morning and made it to work on time (outcome was positive). Nobody was hurt as there was nobody in the intersection. I don't think a cop should give me a ticket, do you?

yes


Just curious, if the teller had charged the guy, the guy pulled out a gun and killed 4 other people on the street (or in the bank) and didn't kill the teller, should the teller have been fired then?

no.

Why should the cop have give me a ticket then? There was a positive outcome and nobody was hurt? Explain?


Let me rephrase the bank teller question...if the teller had a rule (as in the above traffic rule) to NOT interact in such a robbery...then?

Safety rules are put in place for a reason. Break them at your job and see what happens. You get written up or fired. Sure, what the guy did was in ideal great, but he broke the rule and the company had every right to fire him. Should they? Depends, but they had the right (just like the cop could opt to NOT give me a ticket but probably would anyway).

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, he did go against company policy but the outcome was positive so why would you fire him? Doesn't make any sense IMO.

I ran a red light this morning and made it to work on time (outcome was positive). Nobody was hurt as there was nobody in the intersection. I don't think a cop should give me a ticket, do you?

Just curious, if the teller had charged the guy, the guy pulled out a gun and killed 4 other people on the street (or in the bank) and didn't kill the teller, should the teller have been fired then?

problem is, people seem to operate on the "what if" way of thinking.

what if someone was killed as a result of his action

But what if someone wasnt killed as a result of his action. <--- This was the result, the guy should get a bravery award for showing courage.



what if the world ends tomorrow?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Sea Moose

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, he did go against company policy but the outcome was positive so why would you fire him? Doesn't make any sense IMO.

I ran a red light this morning and made it to work on time (outcome was positive). Nobody was hurt as there was nobody in the intersection. I don't think a cop should give me a ticket, do you?

Just curious, if the teller had charged the guy, the guy pulled out a gun and killed 4 other people on the street (or in the bank) and didn't kill the teller, should the teller have been fired then?

problem is, people seem to operate on the "what if" way of thinking.

what if someone was killed as a result of his action

But what if someone wasnt killed as a result of his action. <--- This was the result, the guy should get a bravery award for showing courage.



what if the world ends tomorrow?

Rules are always made for a "what if" situation. As in my red light example, I could run that red light 10 out of 10 times with ZERO accidents. Maybe we should get rid of the rule, right? If not, why shouldn't we?

What if the world ends tomorrow is a strawman and nothing to do with this argument. Fail for that one.

 

[Locut0s]

There is a good reason employers have rules about these kinds of things. If the robber had had a gun and killed the guy and other innocent by-standards this poll result might be different.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Locut0s
There is a good reason employers have rules about these kinds of things. If the robber had had a gun and killed the guy and other innocent by-standards this poll result might be different.

No it wouldn't. There are people in the world that are for this type of action and think there should be no consequences for breaking the rules of safety. Let the guy come in late to work for two straight weeks though and they would be all for firing his lazy ass.

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Sea Moose

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, he did go against company policy but the outcome was positive so why would you fire him? Doesn't make any sense IMO.

I ran a red light this morning and made it to work on time (outcome was positive). Nobody was hurt as there was nobody in the intersection. I don't think a cop should give me a ticket, do you?

Just curious, if the teller had charged the guy, the guy pulled out a gun and killed 4 other people on the street (or in the bank) and didn't kill the teller, should the teller have been fired then?

problem is, people seem to operate on the "what if" way of thinking.

what if someone was killed as a result of his action

But what if someone wasnt killed as a result of his action. <--- This was the result, the guy should get a bravery award for showing courage.



what if the world ends tomorrow?

Rules are always made for a "what if" situation. As in my red light example, I could run that red light 10 out of 10 times with ZERO accidents. Maybe we should get rid of the rule, right? If not, why shouldn't we?

What if the world ends tomorrow is a strawman and nothing to do with this argument. Fail for that one.

ok, so by your logic, you should loose your job for running a red light? If you had been caught you would have been given a small fine, maybe loose a couple of points on your license. But what if you hit a car full of babies, should we throw you in prison because that might have happened?


This guy did something heroic and he loses his job for it? He stopped the guy from reoffending and perhaps saved someone from losing their life when criminal reoffends tomorrow. He should have been told off for putting himself at risk, but he made a choice and hada set of balls.

And dont call me a strawman, thats a term that academics use when tradesman outsmart them.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: se7en
I hope he gets hired right back by some other company.

Originally posted by: amdhunter
Also, he is opening the bank to a flurry of lawsuits from the robber.

Only in America can you commit a crime and sue the people you robbed.

How often does this actually happen? I always hear people talking about it happening all the time, but I don't think I've actually seen a specific case where a criminal successfully sued their victim. I'm sure it has happened, but I don't think it's as commonplace as people seem to think it is.

I think the bank is more concerned about the lawsuits that could result if a criminal killed/injured customers or employees after an employee tried to stop him.

A teenage criminal who received £567,000 in compensation after falling through a roof while trespassing boasted about his wealth yesterday, saying that he was looking forward to buying "a few houses and a flash car".

Carl Murphy, 18, got the payout last week, nine years after being injured in a 40ft fall at a warehouse in Bootle docks, near Liverpool, prompting angry protests from crime victims and politicians.

In his first public interview since receiving the award, Murphy - who has convictions for robbery, burglary and assault - said that he did not care about the response.

"I deserve this money and I don't care what anybody says about me," he said. "I'm going to buy a big house so I have a place to live with me mum when she gets out of jail. I might buy a few houses - I'll buy whatever I want." He added: "The papers just call me a yob and a thug because I've been done for robbery and assault but those were just silly stupid little things, like.

"I want to spend my money the way I want without people interfering and I want to have a prosperous future.

"I want to take my mates to Liverpool games and get a flash car. This money is mine now and I'll do what I want. I don't care about anyone or what they have to say about it."

Murphy received his compensation after suing the company that owned the warehouse. He claimed that if the perimeter fence had not been in disrepair he would not have been able to gain entry and suffer his injuries.

He is now partially blinded in his left eye and has 17 metal plates in his skull as a result of the fall. He also claims that the incident has caused him to suffer from behavioural problems. It annoys me that people think I don't deserve this money after all I've been through," he said. "I'm going to spend my money on whatever I want and everyone who called me 'Tin Head' can go get stuffed."

Residents of Bootle, where Murphy lives, said that they were too scared to speak publicly about the case but privately described him as the area "king yob".

One said: "He shaves his head so we can all see the scars. He likes to walk around and play the big man.

"I've seen him yelling abuse at the shopkeepers, telling them how he is going to buy the shop with his compensation money and throw them out.

"He is a villain around here. Everybody knows him but no one wants to confront him. He has a big family and they all stand up for each other."

In November last year, Murphy's mother Diane and her partner Kevin Parsons, both 36, were jailed for three years for dealing in crack cocaine and heroin from their council house in Bellini Close.

A police spokesman said: "Diane Murphy was using the home to distribute Class A drugs which was bringing a large criminal element into the suburb.

"Residents in the area are intimidated. Crime is happening on their doorstep. People like Diane Murphy and others who sell drugs disrupt the decent people who live there."

Police describe the area around Bellini Close as a "hotbed for anti-social behaviour, street-level crime and the distribution of Class A drugs". Several buildings are boarded up and vandalised - and gangs of teenagers wearing shell suits and trainers walk up and down the street shouting and drinking alcohol in the early daytime. Police make regular rounds.

Since Murphy's mother was jailed, he has lived with his grandmother, Barbara Murphy, who keeps a rottweiler in her home on nearby Church Grove.

She said: "He never finished school because the teachers couldn't control him. He was a nice boy before the accident but ever since the injuries he has been difficult to control. He needs this money. That is him for life now. What is he going to do without it?"

She said that Murphy does not work or attend school. Neighbours say that they see him drinking in the park with friends on most evenings or hanging around a local cafe.

The payout has been condemned by charities, which point out that victims of crime receive far less under the Government's criminal injuries compensation scheme.

The parents of James Bulger received just £7,500 following his murder, and the family of Damilola Taylor received £10,000 following his murder.

Clive Elliott, the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said: "All rights to compensation should cease the moment a person breaks the law, in this case trespassing.

"Wrongdoers think they are beyond the law - and in this case they have shown they can become quite well off by breaking it."

From a few years ago...

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Sea Moose

ok, so by your logic, you should loose your job for running a red light? If you had been caught you would have been given a small fine, maybe loose a couple of points on your license. But what if you hit a car full of babies, should we throw you in prison because that might have happened?


This guy did something heroic and he loses his job for it? He stopped the guy from reoffending and perhaps saved someone from losing their life when criminal reoffends tomorrow. He should have been told off for putting himself at risk, but he made a choice and hada set of balls.

And dont call me a strawman, thats a term that academics use when tradesman outsmart them.

The "What if the world ends tomorrow" is a strawman and has nothing to do with outsmarting me. It has no relevance to the story at hand, at all.

Let's go back to the logic now. I never said nor insinuated that you should lose your job for running a red light. There is a rule that you get a ticket if you run a red light. The rule is there for the "what if's" of the world (what if I run it and kill somebody). It is a safety rule. I broke the rule (regardless if I killed somebody or not) so I get a ticket. The law was set up to give me a ticket and then, if I had killed someone running the light, another law is in effect for that set of circumstances. I don't think the bank had several rules in place for "if you acted out and nothing happened" vs "if you acted out and innocent people were killed". The bank rules (as any industry rules) are there for safety and are not to be overlooked. The idea of the ticket law is to discourage running of the red light "before" someone does it and actually kills someone.

The same can be said for the rules of the bank. Sure, the guy came out OK this time (just like I did when I ran the red light). Next time, he (I running a red light) may not be so lucky.

And for the record, I'm not stating that the man "should" have been fired, I'm stating that by the rules of the bank, they have every right to fire him for breaking the rules. Like I said, many on here would fire him in a heartbeat if he was late for work for a solid week but would cheer for this rule to be broken and make him a hero. Depends on what rules you like and dislike, I suppose.

Hopefully, explained well enough that a Sea Moose can understand.

 

[KK]

They should promote him to security. Or is that really a demotion?

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: Engineer


Hopefully, explained well enough that a Sea Moose can understand.

We prefer small words.




I think the guy should be commended. I also think bravery should be honored.

The bank is evil.






Note: I am not loosing my temper in a debate
for me and no bannage!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
Note: I am not loosing my temper in a debate
for me and no bannage!

:laugh:....Sea Moose are such simple creatures!

 

[Fox5]

How much money was stolen? If the bank robber got away with $100, the police likely wouldn't even care, let alone the bank.

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
Note: I am not loosing my temper in a debate
for me and no bannage!

:laugh:....Sea Moose are such simple creatures!

Change wookie for sea moose

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Sea Moose

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, he did go against company policy but the outcome was positive so why would you fire him? Doesn't make any sense IMO.

I ran a red light this morning and made it to work on time (outcome was positive). Nobody was hurt as there was nobody in the intersection. I don't think a cop should give me a ticket, do you?

Just curious, if the teller had charged the guy, the guy pulled out a gun and killed 4 other people on the street (or in the bank) and didn't kill the teller, should the teller have been fired then?

problem is, people seem to operate on the "what if" way of thinking.

what if someone was killed as a result of his action

But what if someone wasnt killed as a result of his action. <--- This was the result, the guy should get a bravery award for showing courage.



what if the world ends tomorrow?

I won't have to read any more of your posts. See, I try to look at the bright side of things.

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Sea Moose

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, he did go against company policy but the outcome was positive so why would you fire him? Doesn't make any sense IMO.

I ran a red light this morning and made it to work on time (outcome was positive). Nobody was hurt as there was nobody in the intersection. I don't think a cop should give me a ticket, do you?

Just curious, if the teller had charged the guy, the guy pulled out a gun and killed 4 other people on the street (or in the bank) and didn't kill the teller, should the teller have been fired then?

problem is, people seem to operate on the "what if" way of thinking.

what if someone was killed as a result of his action

But what if someone wasnt killed as a result of his action. <--- This was the result, the guy should get a bravery award for showing courage.



what if the world ends tomorrow?

I won't have to read any more of your posts. See, I try to look at the bright side of things.

My posts do suck. Hard to type with tusks.

 

[Triumph]

Pathetic responses in this thread. Ok so he shouldn't have gone after the robber. Fine. But nothing bad happened, so why are they firing him? If his actions had resulted in additional people getting hurt, then sure reprimand him. But no one was, so how about giving him a promotion instead?

Buncha cowards in this country.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
And dont call me a strawman, thats a term that academics use when tradesmen outsmart them.

Brilliant!

P&N would totally jump all over your ass for that one. That place is a mecca of standardized attacks. I think most folks there just have a database of arguments and when they respond its really just an issue of searching the database, the a copy+paste action.
And it would seem this place is attracting more and more P&N regulars every week. I guess they got bored of arguing with each other, which is another way of saying their databases are in need of updates.