Bank teller stops alleged robber, loses job

Bank teller stops alleged robber, loses job

www.cnn.com

Jim Nicholson could've just handed over the cash. Instead, he gave the would-be robber a run for his money -- and paid for it.

---

"So I grab the bag ... I threw it on the floor," Nicholson told CNN Radio. He said he demanded the robber show him a weapon. When he realized there was none, Nicholson said, he lunged at the robber, chased him down the street, pinned him down and waited for the police.

That was Tuesday of last week. He lost his job Thursday.

Why?

"Policy violation," Nicholson said. "Basically, we are supposed to comply with any robber that would come in. We'

(visit the link for the full news article)

I have seen this time and again .. someone does the right thing, and gets fired. Just a few weeks ago there was a story about a guy working at a story who attacked a purse snatcher .. got the purse back, gets fired.

This guy stopped a bank robbery, and on top of that, captured the perp and the police arrested him. The bank then proceeded to FIRE him?!?

I gotta say, the guy had some major cajones to throw a bank robbers bag on the ground and demand he be shown the weapon lol...

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

"Money, after all, is insurable and it's replaceable," she added. "Lives are not."

He was foolish and he lost his job - big whoop!

I mean if he is fully aware of the policy who else can he blame?

The crook would of been on plenty of CCTV, the counter guy could of just pushed a silent alarm button after handing over the money.

Instead he potentially put his and other peoples lives at risk - he could of put people in line to be taken as hostages or human shields... The fight would of been brought to the police and they would have to fight it there - And we all know how trigger happy US cops are!

Nah, he should of just let it go, let the police chase him down or let him go, whatever, it was not his decision and now he is in the unemployment cue and wont be hired by another bank ever again

Rambo didn't think that one through did he?

this guy gets my respect, if more people were like this there wouldnt be so many robberies.
this is how "bad areas" get started, everyone submits when someone decides to rob a place and other predators take note and it gets worse. stand your ground, keep criminals down.

reply to post by turbokid


No if more people were like him then all the real dumb ass crims will be taken down, plenty of people will get shot by accident and all the good crims will get better - there will be a kinda evolution thing... Then you will only have the clever and organised crims.

Edit: It's not like he was defending his own business like a bar or a petrol station and he pulled out a shotgun - that's different... This muppet was just looking for a bit of glory that would get the other counter dollys into bed.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by Now_Then]

reply to post by turbokid


If more people were like that there's a better chance someone's going to do something stupid and get someone hurt. If I was a customer in the bank I'd want the teller to do what the robber says. Not try to fight him.

I worked in a bank. They had an absolute policy - hand over any money, with or without seeing a weapon. This was not an *option*, it was mandatory.

The amount of money in a teller's till is minimal, a few thousands at the very most - usually much less. If the bank lost it completely, it wouldn't even notice. They'd write it off at the end of the year, along with the old computers and other stuff.

The important thing is that you have absolutely no idea what your bank robber is going to do. Sure, he could be faking, not even have a gun. But he could also have an uzi on him and start to shoot up the place, killing everyone in sight. He could be working with partners who are covering him, ready to take out the guards (if present) and other. You could easily create a hostage situation. I have no problem with someone risking his own life, but to endanger the other tellers and the customers is unacceptable.

This guy no doubt had been told of the policy. There is a reason for it. It is much better to lose a few thousand dollars and to let the crook escape, than to risk even a single person getting shot. One bullet hole costs more than what the robber could get from the bank.

Besides this, now the robber could (theoretically) have a claim against the bank. I could see where he could claim that the teller, not being trained in properly restraining people, caused needless injuries that the police wouldn't have caused. Sure it's a crock, but that's what makes our legal system great.

Or, had this gone even worse - had the robber whipped out a gun and started shooting - the bank would probably legitimately be on the hook for injuries, since someone acting for the bank (the teller, even if he was violating policy) caused the situation that led to the injuries.

BTW, in the bank I worked at, we had a hero teller, too. He chased after the robber. He's dead, though - shot by the robber as he fled. Guess he had a gun after all.

No, this teller's thinking was clouded by testosterone. He was completely out of line, and needed to be taken out of job where he could endanger so many people. Let him join the police and get proper training, if he wants to be a hero.

Oh, and another thing. A teller makes just about nothing. It's a real crappy job, so this guy isn't losing much after all.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Both parties are somehow correct in their instincts IMO. There's a chance the robber could have endangered people in the bank due to one employee's actions. On the other hand, the robber could as well endanger people in the future if he was given the chance to escape..

If I were the bank manager though, I would still fire him, BUT won't let him go empty-handed financially and mentally.

Originally posted by chiron613
Oh, and another thing. A teller makes just about nothing. It's a real crappy job, so this guy isn't losing much after all.

Well yhea but nowadays when hopelessly depressed, repressed and generally un nice recruitment officer is thumbing through the applications it's soooo easy for them to 'google' peoples names and details...

That little incident is the sort of thing that gets you put in the wrongun list...

And from personal experience even something like NOT!! have a facebook account can count against you! :bnghd: - one agency I was doing bit work for, one of the office girls casually ask why I (as the youngish friendly outgoing type) didn't have a facebook account... I didn't go into detail I just said it's not for me, she said it's a shame, people like me could get more work (or less) if the office girls can have a good route around the account!!! :shk:

Another agency that has my CV from ages ago still sends me facebook invites to join up 'for more convenient updates on jobs' - it's a sad point in history right here folks if your not super savvy at all times.