Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bank Robberies  
User currently offlineDahawaiian From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 231 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 901 times:

Why O why is it always bank policy (here in the US) to have the teller give the bank robbers the loot? How many times per day in America does some person go up to a bank teller with a note reading "I've got a gun" or "I've got a bomb," and the teller goes right ahead and forks over the dough? 99% of the time these clowns don't even have a weapon, not that this is the way the situation should be treated like in every instance. Usually the people who rob banks don't do it just once, but multiple times before they stop or are caught.
It seems like banks would rather have the criminal walk off with their money instead of confronting the perpetrator and attempting to defuse the situation. It is almost like following a hijacker's demands post 9/11. It just seems like banks would rather appease criminals than deal with them, leaving the effects to insurance or their clientele. I know many people will say that it is all in an attempt to prevent injury, but I believe more harm is being done by simply letting these people walk out with the loot without a confrontation. Are the banks the enabler, or is the policy of cooperation with a robber the best way in which to deal with a situation like this?
We don't take no stinkin' prisoners!

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineFlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 876 times:

The money is insured by the FDIC. That's why banks don't mind losing it.

The banks' insurance premiums don't go up the more money they lose to bank robbers, and their liability insurance, should somebody get killed, would explode.

Banks can also recover the money if the teller puts a dye pack in it. It's not like giving the money over means the robber gets away with it.

Also, bank robbers have defined aims: to steal money. They don't want to destabilize our economy (although if enough people did rob banks, they would). Hence appeasement works with them.

User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 842 times:

The money is insured by the FDIC. That's why banks don't mind losing it.

Not quite. The FDIC insures depositors in case a bank fails. It does not insure the banks themselves, although most banks probably carry commercial insurance from private companies that may cover robberies.

"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2682 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 804 times:

If banks required tellers to confront robbers, then the banks could be accused of being enablers to murder when the tellers are killed. All hell will break loose, then.

Besides, tellers don't get paid enough to risk their lives for the bank -- even if, as you say, most robbers do not even have guns.


"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30403 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 794 times:

It was the same reason why pilots used to be told to follow the instructions of a hijacker.

If you give in the chances are that he wont have reason to shoot you.

User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 786 times:

I heard an amusing story about a bank robbery. A homeless man walked into a bank and asked for some money. The teller, thinking it was a hold up, emptied the till and handed it over. When the man was caught and charged with robbery he was found not guilty because he had asked for the money and it wasn't his fault that the teller thought they were being robbed. I don't think that any of the money was recovered either.

Ever noticed that banks don't get any sympathy when they are robbed? Maybe it's something to do with the obscene profits they make.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Scam - A Fake Bank In Uganda posted Thu Jul 23 2009 09:07:28 by Oly720man
Bank Mistakenly Gives Couple AU$6 Million posted Fri May 22 2009 21:40:18 by Springbok747
Assault On Ex-bank CEO posted Wed Mar 25 2009 05:35:25 by Na
Bank Of America Mail...WTF?!?! posted Tue Mar 3 2009 09:47:47 by Lincoln
Israel Plans 73,300 Housing Units In The West Bank posted Mon Mar 2 2009 10:13:04 by Mortyman
U.S. Federal Reserve = World Central Bank? posted Sat Feb 7 2009 18:23:23 by PPVRA
Unusual UK Bank Notes posted Thu Jan 29 2009 14:01:17 by NWOrientDC10
Bank Of England Interest Rate Cuts. posted Thu Jan 8 2009 11:22:08 by Cumulus
Is Bank Of America Doing Well? posted Thu Dec 18 2008 06:52:07 by United Airline
Citibank - What Bank Isn't "too Big To Fail"? posted Mon Nov 24 2008 17:41:00 by StasisLAX