Dahawaiian From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 229 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 812 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!
PROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 753 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"
Saintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 697 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.