News & Politics - Seattle bank teller fired after chasing robber

**Callace** · 08-04-2009, 05:03 PM

YouTube - Seattle Bank Teller Fired After Chasing Robber

what do you think, did this guy do the right thing, or not?

**vc318** · 08-04-2009, 05:39 PM

To be fired for doing something heroic? What is this world coming to?

I think after people hear this story, this hero will have absolutely zero problems finding another job. What place wouldn't want him?

**sunnykerr** · 08-04-2009, 06:08 PM

Well, maybe places where there are crowds...

I mean, there's a reason why it's illegal for people to fire guns willy-nilly in crowded areas. I haven't seen that video, but seriously, what the heck was that guy thinking? Any customers of the bank could have been seriously hurt.

This is why you have guards and policemen. It's not up to every Tom, Dick and Harry to play superhero.

He's lucky no one was injured.

**TheAngel** · 08-04-2009, 09:06 PM

Vigilantism is about the stupidest thing civilians can do. They lack the training to act in that kind of way, especially when no ones life is in danger and they could potentially escalate the situation. Money in banks is insured, the bank has video cameras, and he should have an alarm button near him that could be used to contact the police without notifying the robber. If the robber had had a gun, or if the bank teller hadn't been able to wrestle him to the ground, we'd probably be hearing a story about a dead bank teller and it was simply luck that kept him alive. There's a thin line between bravery and stupidity and this guy is really tottering on the edge. He could have put other peoples' lives at risk and could have been seriously injured himself.

**Callace** · 08-05-2009, 06:49 AM

ITA. such actions should not be condoned. It could have ended really badly. And if it worked out fine that's almost even worse. Such hero-tales would just encourage all the more people to go all regular joe superhero when they get in a simular situation. And then there's no telling how many people could get hurt or killed unnecessary

**TheAngel** · 08-05-2009, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Callace (View Post)

ITA. such actions should not be condoned. It could have ended really badly. And if it worked out fine that's almost even worse. Such hero-tales would just encourage all the more people to go all regular joe superhero when they get in a simular situation. And then there's no telling how many people could get hurt or killed unnecessary

Well the problem is, when people try to do heroic things, they make my job a lot harder. If I've been told there's a bank robbery in progress and I see two guys wrestling on the ground, I have no idea who the suspect is and who the wanna-be Batman is so that makes the situation a lot more dangerous for me, because suddenly I'm dealing with two possible suspects, so as I cop, having civilians step into dangerous situations is really difficult for me because I can't tell the difference between them and the person I'm supposed to be arresting.

**sunnykerr** · 08-05-2009, 06:37 PM

Exactly. It makes it harder for the actual security/law-enforcement professionals to do their actual job.

And there are absolutely no guarantees that it will end well. That man could have seriously injured himself, not to mention other people.

And the glamorization of his heroics only serves to create pseudo-copycats of this type of reckless behaviour.

I bet you his mother thought he was insane, too. Of course, he never thought of that in the moment.

**vc318** · 08-05-2009, 08:00 PM

Wow, I'm kind of surprised by the reactions here at this thread. I mean, are we actually blaming the teller for possibly putting the lives of the customers at risk? Didn't the bank robber already do that by walking into the bank with plans to hold up the place? Yes, what the guy did was risky but then let's condemn everyone that steps out to help someone. Yes, you're always risking your life but you do it because you know it's the right thing. I just think it was way harsh for this guy to be fired over this. But I say the hell with that job - he already got his biggest reward by bringing down this criminal. How many people can say they woke up and did that today?

**sunnykerr** · 08-06-2009, 06:50 PM

Oh, of course, without the robber, there would have been absolutely no situation of jeopardy to be adressed by anyone. There is no doubt that the bank robber is the one who started it all. None whatsoever.

But that doesn't mean that the bank teller didn't act in a needlessly reckless fashion. It doesn't mean he didn't run the very real risk of making that situation much, much worse.

To me, this is the perfect example of how situations can quickly devolve into much more tragic circumstances. If a person wants to risk their own life to save someone else, that's one thing. But this man wasn't just risking his own life, he was risking the lives of everyone else at that bank. He was risking the lives of the very people called in to help in these situations by confusing the scene for them.

There is undeniable courage in this type of action. And courage is certainly a laudable quality to have. But there was also tremendous recklessness and thoughtlessness.

This guy didn't jump in a river to save a drowning person. He didn't put himself between a raging animal and its intended victim. He didn't run into a burning house to rescue its inhabitants.

He made a very volatile situation even more dangerous for everyone involved.

**vc318** · 08-07-2009, 02:42 AM

Makes me wonder about that whole Good Samaritan Law. When do you know you'll be in trouble for stepping back and allowing a crime to happen or being fired or worse arrested when you step back and don't do anything? I don't know. It's true what the guy did was very risky and he sure is lucky that the guy didn't have a bomb strapped on him with means to blow up the place but thankfully it didn't end up being like that.

**sunnykerr** · 08-10-2009, 07:56 PM

Actually, Good Samaritan laws are, for the most part, about protecting the person who comes in and helps from prosecution down the line, should the person they help feel the intervention made the situation worse.

And they change from province to province or state to state.

There are some that have some sort of "compulsion to act" aspect to them, like if the first person on the scene is a medical professional, then they would have to act. But it's always within the limits of what would be considered reasonable. So, you know, help the passenger who got ejected from the burning car but don't necessarily crawl in to try and free whomever else might be in there.

But, for the most part, it's to make sure that, if there's imminent danger requiring some sort of action, and someone takes that action, and that action is considered to be a common-sensical reaction to the situation at hand, then the person taking the action cannot be sued if the person they rescued feels they did something wrong.

Like, for instance, if someone pulled a drowning person out of water but broke their leg in the process.

Most people would be grateful to have their life saved, but you know there's some whack jobs out there who would sue for damages.

The Good Samaritan laws are meant to prevent that.

**TheAngel** · 08-11-2009, 07:04 AM

The problem is, most civilians make situations like that worse. The guys that have seen way too many episodes of 24 and CSI think that they can be heroic. Most bank robberies don't end in a person getting shot. That isn't the goal of the robber. But this young bank teller could have cause that outcome if the robber had had a gun, gotten scared, and turned a simple bank robbery into a hostage situation. This guy was lucky, end of story. It could have turned out much worse. If it had been a life or death situation and he'd been forced to act, then I'd be more than happy to call him a hero, but he put the lives of a lot of people at risk because he wanted to be a hero. He's a liability, and I don't blame the bank for firing him. If that happens again, he does that, and some innocent person is harmed because of his actions, the bank would have been held responsible for the actions of their employee. Besides, all banks have policies in place that say, do not engage with a suspect in a robbery, press the alarm button, call the police, but just do what they say.

**Callace** · 08-23-2009, 01:40 PM

it reminds me of a quote from a tv-series I have been watching a little. (Primeval): "th thing about the great heroic act: If it works, it's all wonderful. If it doesnt, it just leaves it up to all of us others to clean up the mess"

If the action is not necessary, and has a risk of making things all the worse, it should thud not be done. It isnt worth it, endangering everyone even more than the situation with the robberer is already doing. As has been pointed out here: if it was a sort of heroics that would not put innocent people in danger, then try it. But in this case, it could leave far too much tragic mess for someone else to clean up, if it went wrong. And make their job harder and more dangerous.