Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jim Nicholson, a bank teller for Key Bank in Seattle, got fired because he caught a bank robber attempting to rob his bank. The robber has a past history of criminal activity, Seattle is in the top ten of states with the most bank robberies, no one got injured, but this clean cut, well-spoken, all American guy got fired for being a hero. I really don't understand this kind of thinking, so I emailed Anne Foster of Key Bank and told her that I will not be doing any banking with Key Bank. What is our world coming to when a guy gets fired for stopping a bank robbery and catching a criminal? Outrageous!
Seattle Bank Teller Loses Job After Thwarting Heist - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com
A Seattle bank teller learned that lesson the hard way last week when he thwarted a would-be robbery — and got fired for bucking company policy.
Jim Nicholson was working at a Key Bank branch on Tuesdaywhen a man wearing a beanie cap, dark clothing and sunglasses entered the bank and demanded money. That's when instinct overwhelmed him.
"They tell us that we're just supposed to comply, but my instincts kicked in and I did what's best to stop the guy," the 30-year-old Nicholson told The Seattle Times. "I thought if I let him go he would rob more banks and cause more problems."
Rather than comply with the robber's demands, Nicholson tossed his bag to the floor, lunged at the suspect and demanded to see a weapon.
"My intent was to grab his glasses off his face, or him," Nicholson told the paper.
The man ran, and Nicholson chased him for several blocks before knocking him down with help from a passerby. Nicholson then held the suspect, Aaron J. Sloan, 29, until police arrived.
Nicholson's reward? Two days after the failed heist, he was fired.
Key Bank spokeswoman Anne Foster declined to comment on his termination, but she said protecting the safety of employees and clients was the bank's top priority.
"Our policies and procedures are in the best interests of public safety and are consistent with industry standards," Foster said in a statement to FOXNews.com on Monday. "Money, which is insured, can be replaced. Lives cannot."
I do realize that banks don't want their employees trying to be the hero, perhaps luring the robber into using a gun, but the employee should not have been fired for this act. Likely, he will now become a media darling or get an offer from some other company that will eclipse what he was making at this bank.
I think the bank spokesperson should have told the media this was a very rare instance, and they do not encourage their employees to act in such a manner, but all's well that ends well. And the employee should have not been terminated.
I work for a bank and no, I don't agree with his termination either. But I can tell you that banks do usually pretty emphatically stress complying with the robber's demands and NOT being a hero.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,718,665 times
Reputation: 41376
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaykay
I work for a bank and no, I don't agree with his termination either. But I can tell you that banks do usually pretty emphatically stress complying with the robber's demands and NOT being a hero.
Ditto, as a teller myself on the East Coast i'd probably give the robber the money myself. It's the banks money, not mine.
I used to be a teller and we were told pretty constantly that if someone comes in wanting money, to not be a hero. Give them the money and leave the heroism to someone trained to do that.
I don't understand why he got fired though.
Location: I never said I was perfect so no refunds here sorry!
6,489 posts, read 7,178,879 times
Reputation: 29855
Well the cold hard reality of the termination is that every company has standard operating policies that strickly forbid that type of behavior.
We can all set here and say wow! terrible thing he was terminated and talk the bank down for their actions, however what would we be saying if his actions got 1, 2 or more people killed.
Terrible thing that he is unemployed currently, would even be worse if his family had to bury him.
I don't mean to sound harsh but that is exactly why any company that deals with the public and handles money specifically has mirror policies as this bank.
This employee knew the policy way before doing what he did regardless of the outcome!
The hero got a job at a competitor bank right across the street. They are also using his heroism in their newest ad campaign. The new bank is reporting increased business with new money coming in. Bank employees say customers are siding with the hero teller and wait in line to do tranactions with him.
We've been conditioned to be a nation of pacifists, which is why five guys can take over an airplane with boxcutters and slam it into a building, with nary a peep out of anyone sitting in First Class.
Many suffer from the misconception that we have some sort of implied tacit social contract with criminals that exchanges compliance for safety. This is patently false. Phrases such as "luring the robber into using a gun," to champion complete and total passivity, betray this concept has rotted our collective consciousness.
If a criminal has it in them to kill you, they will make the attempt at their own discretion. Your compliance is only relevant to his decision making process, in that your supplication leaves the decision entirely in his hands, and rids you of choice and responsibility over the outcome. Those who fear dealing decisively with threatened violence, more than the criminals themselves, seem to have the most to gain from pushing the "good hostage" meme.
A story for your consideration: My best friend in college worked as a teller in a bank in a very affluent area of Northern California. One day, two armed men burst in and began shooting. One of the men grabbed a Mother of two and headed to the main vault. My friend knew the woman could not open the vault because it was on a timer, and only management could override it; the manager was not there that day.
He heroically stepped between the woman and the thug, effectively taking her place, and offered to assist him in opening the vault. My friend knew full well it couldn't be opened, but reasoned it would be better for him to die than her.
He fumbled valiantly with the locking mechanism, but the robber became antsy with every failed attempt to gain entrance to the money. Angrily, he began firing in the small room to scare my friend, and eventually he shot my friend and ran out.
Luckily, my buddy had trained with me a bit, and at the moment he saw the gunman raise his piece to fire, he stepped off the line of attack, and threw a hand up to shield him in retreat. The bullet meant for his head pierced his arm, and nothing else. Had my friend not stepped in to save that Mother of two, you can guess that outcome.
Incidentally, two months later the same two guys (according to Law Enforcement) robbed a bank in Southern California. Everyone present complied with their requests. On the way out the door, and almost as an after-thought, the same robber who had shot my friend, turned at the door, noticed a woman cowering on the ground, put his gun to her head, and pulled the trigger. He robbed three children of their Mother that day.
These stories are not unusual. The National Safety Council estimates that if one completely complies with a criminal's requests, there is still a 25% chance of being injured or killed. Me? I'll take my chances fighting back.
For what it's worth, statistically speaking, when banks had armed tellers, and a policy of active resistance, there were less robberies, and less fatalities. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
Nowadays, most robberies are committed by note to the teller, with no supporting weapon. And the average take is around $25 grand! A lot of money for very little work.
Many of today's banks have become so passive as to even stop the usage of exploding ink packs to mark their money. Why? Because back in the 90's some idiot gang banger took a sack of stolen money, put it down his pants, so he would have his hands free during escape, and it blew his nuts off.
Sounds like justice to me, but the banks don't want the liability. But if you get shot in a robbery? That's okay, just don't sue, and it will be business as usual--nothing to see here, and all that.
It was just a matter of time before banks started punishing employees for defending themselves. Hell, legislators have been doing that already to the citizenry for years....with your help, that is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
