Randall Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Come on people. SEATTLE — A Seattle bank teller has lost his job because he ran down a would-be bank robber and held him until police arrived. Jim Nicholson, 30, who had worked for more than two years at a Key Bank branch near the Seattle Center, says he understands the bank's strict policy that employees comply with robbery demands and avoid confrontations. But he told The Seattle Times that instinct took over when a thin man in a beanie cap, dark clothing and sunglasses pushed a black backpack across the bank counter on Tuesday and demanded money. Nicholson threw the bag to the floor, lunged toward the man and demanded to see a weapon. The man bolted for the door with Nicholson in pursuit. He chased him several blocks before knocking him to the ground with the help of a passer-by. Nicholson then held the man until police arrived. On Thursday, Nicholson was fired. Key Bank spokeswoman Anne Foster declined to comment on Nicholson and his actions. Police and the FBI discourage such heroics. Bank tellers are trained to get robbers out the door quickly and are advised against possibly escalating a situation over money that's federally insured. Nicholson said he understands why he was fired. "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," he said. "I thought if I let him go he would rob more banks and cause more problems." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 A friend of mine worked at Lowe's a few years back. He is a big guy and played dline in college. He chased the thief down into an icy parking lot. He made the play and put the guy into some sort of headlock deathgrip. The guy was shreaking that his head was going to pop until the law got there. Come to find out my buddy squeezed the guys head so hard he fractured his OWN wrist. When he got back from the hospital they fired him for unnecessary force. I would have loved to have seen the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Some guy just got fired from a supermarket here in Austin for chasing down a guy that snatched the purse of a woman outside the store. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 one only has to thank some wonderful lawyers for this stoopidity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 while it was a noble thing to do I can easily see the banks reasoning for having such a "rule" in place....his actions easily could have put more lives in jeopardy (both employee and customer)...while it may not have this time if they dont act upon it then it just leaves the door open for someone to try again in the future and then it might not be so lucky...fwiw, many retailers have a policy not to chase etc....think about it this way.....security or an employee chases a suspect into the mall running thru people and in the process the suspect knocks down a very elderly person and they break a hip and get hurt...you can bet your bottom dollar that the store will be found liable...actually that is very close to a real case that happened to a large dept store many years ago....and the store was found negligent or some such thing...so as Dmarc said, thank the lawyers(partially anyway) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 the bank is insured. this guy might have shown some heroics but what are the chances that something could have gone wrong and somebody could have gotten killed because he was playing cowboy. It sucks, but I agree with the bank. Just because nobody got hurt does not mean it was not stupid. A message needs to be sent because the next guy might not be so lucky. I mean - sure the guy decided the risk was good for 'him' but what about his co-workers and other people in the bank? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) one only has to thank some wonderful lawyers for this stoopidity Hmm. Let's see, the bank is insured. The cops themselves discourage such action. The bank likely spelled out this policy when they hired the dude and specifically has that policy in place for the protection of the employees themselves. So, yep, sounds like the work of evil lawyers again. I mean, I get it. It sure kind of sucks for the kid but you can hardly have an iron-clad policy put in place but then ignore it if the guy happens to succeed in stopping a robbery without getting killed. None the less, a story like this is a great excuse to complain about how the good guys always get the short end of the stick or that we should all be packing. Now I'm sure there are plenty among us that aren't cops who just happen to know how deal with this sort of thing. However, I'm sure there are more still who think they do and really don't. Say hero kid pulls this stunt, demands to see a weapon, dude has one and someone besides hero kid gets shot. Some poor a-hole is just waiting in line to make a deposit is now dead because hero kid wanted to save the bank a bag of cash. This is why we have cops. And this is why banks have these sorts of policies. I'm sure his branch manager did not enjoy firing the kid but even the kid himself understood it had to be done. As for the meathead at Lowes, sounds like there's a pretty decent chance he enjoyed his little hero charade a bit much? When we vilify places like Iraq, we talk about their barbaric and draconian punishments for petty crimes. The cops wouldn't have twisted his head halfway off, and had they done so, people would rightfully be up in arms. Your buddy should have been fired and quite possibly arrested for assault. Edited August 3, 2009 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 the bank is insured. this guy might have shown some heroics but what are the chances that something could have gone wrong and somebody could have gotten killed because he was playing cowboy. It sucks, but I agree with the bank. Just because nobody got hurt does not mean it was not stupid. A message needs to be sent because the next guy might not be so lucky. I mean - sure the guy decided the risk was good for 'him' but what about his co-workers and other people in the bank? bingo, they dont pay him to make those types of decisions or risk assessment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Somewhere a suit nods evilly in Delef's and Keggerz's direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Hmm. Let's see, the bank is insured. The cops themselves discourage such action. The bank likely spelled out this policy when they hired the dude and specifically has that policy in place for the protection of the employees themselves. So, yep, sounds like the work of evil lawyers again. I mean, I get it. It sure kind of sucks for the kid but you can hardly have an iron-clad policy put in place but then ignore it if the guy happens to succeed in stopping a robbery without getting killed. None the less, a story like this is a great excuse to complain about how the good guys always get the short end of the stick or that we should all be packing. Now I'm sure there are plenty among us that aren't cops who just happen to know how deal with this sort of thing. However, I'm sure there are more still who think they do and really don't. Say hero kid pulls this stunt, demands to see a weapon, dude has one and someone besides hero kid gets shot. Some poor a-hole is just waiting in line to make a deposit is now dead because hero kid wanted to save the bank a bag of cash. This is why we have cops. And this is why banks have these sorts of policies. I'm sure his branch manager did not enjoy firing the kid but even the kid himself understood it had to be done. As for the meathead at Lowes, sounds like there's a pretty decent chance he enjoyed his little hero charade a bit much? When we vilify places like Iraq, we talk about their barbaric and draconian punishments for petty crimes. The cops wouldn't have twisted his head halfway off, and had they done so, people would rightfully be up in arms. Your buddy should have been fired and quite possibly arrested for assault. my stance is this.......once you deliberately choose to commit a crime, you have no rights. NONE!!! so when these lawyers sue on behalf of injured criminals, they are the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 my stance is this.......once you deliberately choose to commit a crime, you have no rights. NONE!!! so when these lawyers sue on behalf of injured criminals, they are the problem. So the cop should just shoot kids for jaywalking? This is one of the stupider things I've heard in a loooooooong time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 my stance is this.......once you deliberately choose to commit a crime, you have no rights. NONE!!! so when these lawyers sue on behalf of injured criminals, they are the problem. well, it's not the criminal they're worried about with these kinds of policies. it's the employee himself. if he died or was injured in the line of duty, so to speak, the bank would be on the hook. or any bystanders who might be affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 So the cop should just shoot kids for jaywalking? This is one of the stupider things I've heard in a loooooooong time. i would agree that was a stupid thing you said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 my stance is this.......once you deliberately choose to commit a crime, you have no rights. NONE!!! so when these lawyers sue on behalf of injured criminals, they are the problem. Maybe you should write something up about the epidemic of lawsuits filed by criminals who are injured while committing a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Maybe you should write something up about the epidemic of lawsuits filed by criminals who are injured while committing a crime. all it takes is one. just one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) Not a big supporter of vigilantism in any form. Suppose the dude DID have a gun, and a wrestling match broke out in the lobby or on the street and a bystander got shot? That's what goes into the policy making minds of the bank, local police and apparently even the FBI. Edited August 3, 2009 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 my stance is this.......once you deliberately choose to commit a crime, you have no rights. NONE!!! thank you for your complete shredding of the Bill of Rights (specifically, the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 just so I'm clear here....as a general rule, it's best for everyone if we just trust the cops, insurance companies, bankers and lawyers and always do what they tell us is best? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Here's the take from the other side. It was rather stupid for the guy to chase down the would be robber. A bank teller is paid, what, $10-$15 bucks and hour? That certainly isn't enough scratch for him to go risking his life. Hand over the money, trip the alarm and live to talk about it the next day. Playing hero is all well and good when you're trying to save little Jimmy from drowning in the well, but pretty f'ing stupid when faced with an armed robber and someone elses property. Oh, and you were also specifically instructed to NOT attempt hero BS. I don't care how it turned out, it was the wrong move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 just so I'm clear here....as a general rule, it's best for everyone if we just trust the cops, insurance companies, bankers and lawyers and always do what they tell us is best? Well, if you want to keep your job, you should trust your employer and always do what he/she/it tells you is best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 thank you for your complete shredding of the Bill of Rights (specifically, the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments) But our 10th Amendment is getting trampled upon daily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) Here's the take from the other side. It was rather stupid for the guy to chase down the would be robber. A bank teller is paid, what, $10-$15 bucks and hour? That certainly isn't enough scratch for him to go risking his life. Hand over the money, trip the alarm and live to talk about it the next day. Playing hero is all well and good when you're trying to save little Jimmy from drowning in the well, but pretty f'ing stupid when faced with an armed robber and someone elses property. Oh, and you were also specifically instructed to NOT attempt hero BS. I don't care how it turned out, it was the wrong move. yeah, but here's the thing with this particular story....sounds to me like the teller saw that the guy was a poossy and clearly had no weapon. and once the creep saw that the teller knew he was a poosy with no weapon, he hightailed it. granted, he's not a "trained professional" in risk assessment, but his risk assessment here appears to have been right on the money. now, I agree that it really just isn't worth it for a bank teller to risk his life for his employer's insurance company's money. and I can see why banks have that clearly written-out policy. but in this case, I don't think they necessarily needed to fire the guy. I hope the story really bites them in the ass from a PR standpoint, and it seems like it's already moving in that direction. Edited August 3, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 "Some busboy making a buck fifty an hour really give a f*** that you're stealing from the owner?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 i would agree that was a stupid thing you said. No - you said by committing a crime you lose ALL rights. Jaywalking is a crime. An officer witnesses that crime. Therefore, according to you, said jaywalker loses all rights, including those of life, liberty and property. And said cop is free to shoot him. I'm merely illustrating the absurdity of your statement. You believe you understand the founding fathers, but you obviously have little or no clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.