dahawaiian
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 12:51 pm

Bank Robberies

Fri Oct 11, 2002 10:22 am

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!
Dahawaiian
 
FlyBoeing
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 2:08 am

RE: Bank Robberies

Fri Oct 11, 2002 10:34 am

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.
 
prosa
Posts: 5389
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 3:24 am

RE: Bank Robberies

Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:31 am

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"
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: Bank Robberies

Fri Oct 11, 2002 12:52 pm

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.

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Bank Robberies

Fri Oct 11, 2002 1:58 pm

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.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
saintsman
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:34 am

RE: Bank Robberies

Fri Oct 11, 2002 4:37 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chrisca0312, Yahoo [Bot] and 71 guests