Dumb criminals, sure, but what about the cops?

[vaskidmark]

It's not the teller's money, why should he/she care? Rules are to hand the cash over, and a lot of people don't think too clearly or cleverly when you stick a gun in their face.

That ^^

It's insured.  Not that anybody ever bothered to wonder where the insurance money comes from, or how the insurance got paid for, or anything like that.  And certainly not that anybody bothered to recall the original purpose of the insurance, as oppossed to its current "full replacement value" use.

'Scuse me.  I'll be over at the brick wall, pounding my head for a while.

stay safe.

[Fly320s]

It's not the teller's money, why should he/she care? Rules are to hand the cash over, and a lot of people don't think too clearly or cleverly when you stick a gun in their face.

Because not fightin back is tacit approval of the robbery? Especially in this case where the bank teller has a superior fighting position over the robbers.

Because "rules are rules" is a stupid idea. I bet you don't think that way about anti-gun rules.

Because some people will think clearly and act accordingly. Or do you prefer to have a one policy fits all approach to society?

[makattak]

Because not fightin back is tacit approval of the robbery? Especially in this case where the bank teller has a superior fighting position over the robbers.

Because "rules are rules" is a stupid idea. I bet you don't think that way about anti-gun rules.

Because some people will think clearly and act accordingly. Or do you prefer to have a one policy fits all approach to society?

I don't have a "one policy fits all approach to society", but if I were a teller, I'd hand the money over.

Why? Because I wouldn't want to lose my job. I'm not risking my life and sacrificing my livelihood to protect the property of someone who is going to punish me for protecting it.

[Fly320s]

I don't have a "one policy fits all approach to society", but if I were a teller, I'd hand the money over.

Why? Because I wouldn't want to lose my job. I'm not risking my life and sacrificing my livelihood to protect the property of someone who is going to punish me for protecting it.

There is the problem. No one individual will fight back because he might get in trouble from his employer.  "Hey, it aint my money/car/tv/body, so why should I care?"

What if people did start to fight back?  What if most people started to fight back? At some point there would be enough people willing to fight that the businesses would have to change their policies. Or bad guys might actually stop their robberies.

Don't we applaude convenience store clerks who put the hurt on robbers? Don't we applaud the homeowner who gives a burglar a chest-full of lead?

[makattak]

There is the problem. No one individual will fight back because he might get in trouble from his employer.  "Hey, it aint my money/car/tv/body, so why should I care?"

What if people did start to fight back?  What if most people started to fight back? At some point there would be enough people willing to fight that the businesses would have to change their policies. Or bad guys might actually stop their robberies.

Don't we applaude convenience store clerks who put the hurt on robbers? Don't we applaud the homeowner who gives a burglar a chest-full of lead?

I do. And I'd applaud a teller who refused to hand the money over (if he also ultimately stopped the robbery.) And I'd rail about the foolishness of the corporate policy.

I'm telling you that in the interests of my family, I would not be willing to take risks on behalf of a company that will punish me for protecting their property.

It's plainly the aim of the corporation to limit their risk of lawsuits. They will not change their policy in the wake of non-compliance because the assault lawyers will ALWAYS be standing by.

If you want to change the situation, you will have to deal with the legal system that rewards vultures, not the corporate response to limit their exposure to them.

[Tallpine]

Somebody stick's a gun in my face, my primary concern will be to unstick it.

To hell with anybody else's property, and to hell with company policy.

[Fly320s]

I do. And I'd applaud a teller who refused to hand the money over (if he also ultimately stopped the robbery.) And I'd rail about the foolishness of the corporate policy.

I'm telling you that in the interests of my family, I would not be willing to take risks on behalf of a company that will punish me for protecting their property.

It's plainly the aim of the corporation to limit their risk of lawsuits. They will not change their policy in the wake of non-compliance because the assault lawyers will ALWAYS be standing by.

If you want to change the situation, you will have to deal with the legal system that rewards vultures, not the corporate response to limit their exposure to them.

I understand your position better now. Thanks.

So, how do we change the corporate policies and attack lawyers? 

[makattak]

I understand your position better now. Thanks.

So, how do we change the corporate policies and attack lawyers? 

There's always Shakespeare's plan. It has the added benefit that most of our elected officials are also lawyers.

Seriously, though, what we need to do first is stop electing lawyers to office. We elect lawyers and then are Shocked, SHOCKED! to find that they make laws that are beneficial to.... Lawyers!

[kgbsquirrel]

Better yet, a CS grenade.
Pull the pin, set it so the spoon is restrained by door, and fill the rest of the tube with low denomination bills.
Bad guy opens tube and pulls out money, and whammo.

I like this idea, but it's too easy for the robber to just leave and ditch the grenade.


How about a compressed gas charge sticky OC gel/marking dye?