Stop a Bank Robber and Hand him over to the Police - Your Reward? A Pink Slip!

[GHook93]

Here is the story. A would-be bank robber comes into a bank and demands cash. The teller, instead of compling like policy dictates, lunges at the guy and chases him down and subdues the guy until the police arrive. A heroic act. What is his reward? He got fired!

Amazing! Have we become a nation of pussies? Or was the story right for firing him, since he broke story policy. I mean it could have ended differently if the guy had a gun. Other possible scenarios:
(1) The Teller lunges and get shot and dies.
(2) The Teller lunges and the man fires wildly hitting many innocent bystanders
(3) The Teller lunges and struggles with the robber in which a few shots go off and few innocent bystanders get shot

#2 & 3 definitely lead to bad press and probably large lawsuits!
Seattle Bank Teller Loses Job After Thwarting Heist - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

 

[Skull Pilot]

But if he had been killed or seriously injured, his family could have and would have sued the bank for millions.

the bank is insured against losses and the reason they pay for that insurance is to protect their employees and themselves.

the policy was spelled out plain as day in the employee handbook and the teller did not follow that policy hence

 

[auditor0007]

While I applaud this guy for his actions, he was still wrong. Luckily, the outcome was good, but it could have been much different. I've read so many posts on AOL from people who think this guy should not have been fired. What if five or six people had been killed? Would it have been worth it then?

On top of that, how many bank robbers are out there who don't get caught? They may rob a few more banks, but they are destined to find themselves behind bars for a long time.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'd have fired his ass too. No amount of money is worth a human life.

 

[jvn]

As crass as it sounds, the bank was following good risk management advice with that policy and almost HAD to fire the teller for breaking the rules.

Consider the possibility that the robber not only had a gun, but also that he had accomplices that were not apparent at the time the teller lunged at him.

Perhaps the robber shoots the teller - his family could sue.

Perhaps the robber and accomplices end up shooting others in the bank - their families could sue.

Perhaps the robber(s) end up taking EVERYBODY in the bank hostage and they end up being kept for many hours or even days -- ALL OF THEM COULD SUE.

On the other hand, let the robber get away, and the bank is covered for the loss by insurance...

Like I said, crass and somewhat counter intuitive, but financially sound policy.

 

[BrokenAngel]

Heroes are few and far between these days and people willing to stand up for what is right are people who should be commended. On one level this person was very brave for doing what he did, but, he also could have upset a more seasoned robber, gotten himself killed and then endangered the lives of everyone else in that bank. A robber wants in and out, quick and clean and yes you can probably rattle one if you charge them first. The problem lies in the fact that those policies are in place for a reason, they are there to protect not just the tellers themselves, but the people using that bank. Imagine if a mother had been shot or a child, what would have happened to the bank then, and in these times the banks can't afford the possibility of that publicity. A single death due to the misdeeds of a teller would sink the location and if it was a small chain, possibly the bank. This guy was lucky, brave, foolish, and lucky.