Bank teller foils holdup, nabs suspect — loses job

[RTchoke]

Like they say "No good deed goes unpunished".


Bank teller foils holdup, nabs suspect — loses job

A Seattle bank teller who knocked a would-be robber to the ground on Tuesday was fired from his job on Thursday. Jim Nicholson said he knew he was breaking bank policy but wanted to stop the man before he hit other banks.

By Jennifer Sullivan

Jim Nicholson knew he should have just handed over the cash.

But when the thin man in a beanie cap, dark clothing and sunglasses pushed a black backpack across the bank counter and demanded money, Nicholson says his instincts took over.

After more than two years working as a teller at the Key Bank branch in Lower Queen Anne, Nicholson clearly understood the bank's strict policy of quickly complying with robbers' demands and avoiding confrontation.

Instead, Nicholson threw the bag to the floor, lunged toward the robber and demanded to see a weapon. Surprised, the would-be bank robber backed up and then bolted for the door, with Nicholson on his heels.

Nicholson, 30, chased the man for several blocks before knocking him to the ground with the help of a passer-by. Nicholson then held him until police arrived.

That was Tuesday.

On Thursday, Nicholson was fired.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009579648_teller01m.html

[RogerDodger]

Nicholson should NOT have been fired, but I can understand the bank's policy.

[RTchoke]

Nicholson should NOT have been fired, but I can understand the bank's policy.

He should have gotten some reprimand since he knew the policy, but firing.............I wouldn't have done that. That's just me though.

[GA_LP]

He needs to follow the cop's advice and apply for the pd.

[countmein]

I was a bank teller once. On day one they tell you over and over and over and over; do what the robber asks, do not attempt to stop him/her, get a good description of the robber and get-away car.
I have seen videos of tellers, not actors, being shot trying to stop a robber or not obeying them. That was enough for me. The money is insured, give it to them and live another day.

He should have been fired for breaking policy. What would have happened if this guy had an accomplice in the bank and he/she started shooting the place up? What if a simple robbery turned into a hostage situation with dead bodies? No amount of money is worth your co-workers' lives. If the robber is not violent, give them the money and get them the hell out of the bank and everyone goes home to their families. If the robber is violent, do what he says, give him the money and get him out of the bank and let the cops deal with him. Hell, even the guards (ours were off duty police officers) know not to confront the robber in the bank. The bank has this policy to keep their employees safe and it should be followed strictly.

[LouC]

Jim Nicholson said he knew he was breaking bank policy...

I am sorry he decided to engage in activity that he knew was breaking policy.

[DLaw911]

Nicholson said he has run after shoplifters while working at other retail jobs. "It's something I almost look forward to. It's a thrill and I'm an adrenaline-junkie person. It's the pursuit," he said.Sounds to me that he would not even pass the psyc exam for police officer.

[LouC]

Sounds to me that he would not even pass the psyc exam for police officer.

Loose cannon.

[sgtmac_46]

Sounds to me that he would not even pass the psyc exam for police officer.

What's wrong with liking the chase? The guy chased down a bad guy, unarmed on foot and took him in to custody. He's 30 years old and obviously has a decent background, or he wouldn't be working in a bank. A certain degree of aggressive competativeness is required for a police officer.

In fact, having taking police psychological examinations (such as the MMPI) and knowing how they're scored........being a bit of an adrenaline junkie is not a disqualifying characteristic........police Psych exam scores for qualified applicants are supposed to score a bit higher than the average member of the population in personal aggressiveness.



It's interesting what the lay public believes about the kind of personality that should be hired as a police officer........it's all relevant to what they're thinking about at the time. If they're imagining getting pulled over by an officer, they want to hire the kindest, most laid back inoffensive officer imaginable. Change the scenario to which officer you want dealing with the violent gang members who set up shop down the block or the home invader who's currently ransacking their living while they're hiding in their closet and it becomes entirely different.

[sgtmac_46]

He needs to follow the cop's advice and apply for the pd.

Exactly! What the hell was he doing as a bank teller anyway?

[sgtmac_46]

As for the 'Always cooperate with robbers' line of argument.....that's more about liability than safety. If you're told to cooperate, and you get killed, the bank isn't liable.......if you're encouraged to resist, however, and get killed, the bank is liable.

If we were really serious about dealing with armed robbery, we'd encourage EVERYONE to resist.........how many hi-jackings did we have AFTER 9/11? How many are we likely to have? Why? Because as soon as you stood up in a plane post 9/11, and starting giving orders, everyone on the plane would BEAT YOU TO DEATH!

But that will never happen.......but we still encourage some acts through passivity.

[DLaw911]

What's wrong with liking the chase? The guy chased down a bad guy, unarmed on foot and took him in to custody. He's 30 years old and obviously has a decent background, or he wouldn't be working in a bank. A certain degree of aggressive competativeness is required for a police officer.

In fact, having taking police psychological examinations (such as the MMPI) and knowing how they're scored........being a bit of an adrenaline junkie is not a disqualifying characteristic........police Psych exam scores for qualified applicants are supposed to score a bit higher than the average member of the population in personal aggressiveness.

It's interesting what the lay public believes about the kind of personality that should be hired as a police officer........it's all relevant to what they're thinking about at the time. If they're imagining getting pulled over by an officer, they want to hire the kindest, most laid back inoffensive officer imaginable. Change the scenario to which officer you want dealing with the violent gang members who set up shop down the block or the home invader who's currently ransacking their living while they're hiding in their closet and it becomes entirely different.I'm not faulting the guy. I might have given chase as well. But he did so for personal reasons with knowledge it was breaking his rules of employment.

[chip]

His first responsibility is to his customers in the bank plain and simple, his job is to get the robber OUT of the bank as fast as possible with no one getting harmed. I understand why he did it but he put his customers at risk.

[ConstitutionHugger]

Personally I would file a wrongful termination suit.
I used to work as an assistant manager for a national chail retail company and my asked me one day, what I would do if the place got robbed. I asked if he wanted the "book" answer or the true answer. He said true answer so I told him "I'd shoot the robber to keep him from harming me, my employees or my customers" He was shocked to say the least.
But the way I see it Personal preservation is priority #1, THe safety of my employees and customers is Priority #2, Following the stores policy and scumbag safety is way at the bottom of my list. Since when seconds count, the police are only minutes away

[NascarGirl2448]

This man should get his job back and any money he would have earned between now and then paid 10 fold.

[chip]

Personally I would file a wrongful termination suit.

On what grounds? He admitted he broke the company policy.


But the way I see it Personal preservation is priority #1, THe safety of my employees and customers is Priority #2, Following the stores policy and scumbag safety is way at the bottom of my list. Since when seconds count, the police are only minutes away

If thats the way you see it then letting the robber get out of the bank as fast as possible is easily your best bet at personal preservation and the safety of your employees and customers.

[chip]

So what would you think if the robber when chastised to show his weapon, pulled it out and started putting bullets in peoples heads?

[sgtmac_46]

I'm not faulting the guy. I might have given chase as well. But he did so for personal reasons with knowledge it was breaking his rules of employment.

I'm not disagreeing with that..........I don't know why he was working in a bank in the first place.

[sgtmac_46]

So what would you think if the robber when chastised to show his weapon, pulled it out and started putting bullets in peoples heads?

What would you think if the robber got away and murdered Uncle Ben in his next robbery.......wait, wrong story......:think:

[sgtmac_46]

This man should get his job back and any money he would have earned between now and then paid 10 fold.

He should get in a different line of work......his talents are obviously wasted as a bank teller.

[theant]

If everyone who is proud of somebody fighting evil sent a few bucks this person could retire happily. Send me an address and I promise to send $10 myself!

[Pauper66]

If thats the way you see it then letting the robber get out of the bank as fast as possible is easily your best bet at personal preservation and the safety of your employees and customers.

Exactly. You don't know who you're dealing with.

How are you going to shoot him? If you are obviously armed, you likely won't get robbed. So we have to assume the gun you are to use is out of sight (possibly reach?).

Even if it is within reach, you are going to have move pretty quickly to execute your plan. You already have a gun drawn on you.

Have you ever drawn on another person before? Stared down the barrel of a gun?

How do you honestly see this ending?

[Pauper66]

That being said, I've been robbed twice. Once was some punk teen crackhead who stuck a pellet gun in my face. I pulled him over the counter and beat him senseless. I think it was a reaction to having a pellet gun stuck in my face. I know guns. I felt insulted that I was being robbed with a pellet gun.

The other time, the guy had a revolver pointed at my gut. He got away with about 40 bucks.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

He's obviously brave but he needs to follow his companies policies if he wants to work there.

[NCRedState]

This man should get his job back and any money he would have earned between now and then paid 10 fold.

Why?

Jim Nicholson knew he should have just handed over the cash.

....Nicholson clearly understood the bank's strict policy ....

[gdoane]

ACCUSED ROBBER FILES SUIT AGAINST BANK

Excoriated Press, August 2, 2009

A Seattle area transient, following a foiled robbery, decided to press forward with a lawsuit against Key Bank of Seattle for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder inflicted when a teller didn't fork over the cash like all the other good tellers do.

"I was expecting payday, and instead I had to run for my freedom!" bawled the transient. "Those tellers aren't supposed to act like men! Next time I'm sticking to robbing the girls, and I'm suing the pants off of this guy too!"

A Key Bank of Seattle spokesman said of the lawsuit "We'll probably settle, after all we wanted to give money to this guy in the first place."

[DLaw911]

ACCUSED ROBBER FILES SUIT AGAINST BANK

Excoriated Press, August 2, 2009

A Seattle area transient, following a foiled robbery, decided to press forward with a lawsuit against Key Bank of Seattle for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder inflicted when a teller didn't fork over the cash like all the other good tellers do.

"I was expecting payday, and instead I had to run for my freedom!" bawled the transient. "Those tellers aren't supposed to act like men! Next time I'm sticking to robbing the girls, and I'm suing the pants off of this guy too!"

A Key Bank of Seattle spokesman said of the lawsuit "We'll probably settle, after all we wanted to give money to this guy in the first place."Gene, are you auditioning as a writer for the new Leno show!! :)

[DLaw911]

I'm not disagreeing with that..........I don't know why he was working in a bank in the first place.Maybe because of something in his background that's the best he could get. But this is only a hunch.

[gdoane]

Gene, are you auditioning as a writer for the new Leno show!! :)

I find humor to be disarming and allows a point to be made that may not otherwise get past mental defenses.

That said, easy targets do not diminish criminal activity. I live in Phoenix, Arizona, which holds the dubious honor of Kidnapping Capitol of the USA. Why? Because most kidnap victims here are here illegally, and when their smugglers order them to give up numbers to call for ransoms, they will comply. Calling the authorities while they themselves are involved in a crime is not an attractive option.

The concept of an attractive nuisance is in play here. When robbers hear that if bank tellers resist their threats that they'll be fired, then what effect will that have on the robber's willingness to threaten a bank teller?

An ounce of prevention, or a pound of cure? It seems to me this policy of appeasing the robber or be fired tends towards the pound side.

[DLaw911]

I find humor to be disarming and allows a point to be made that may not otherwise get past mental defenses.

That said, easy targets do not diminish criminal activity. I live in Phoenix, Arizona, which holds the dubious honor of Kidnapping Capitol of the USA. Why? Because most kidnap victims here are here illegally, and when their smugglers order them to give up numbers to call for ransoms, they will comply. Calling the authorities while they themselves are involved in a crime is not an attractive option.

The concept of an attractive nuisance is in play here. When robbers hear that if bank tellers resist their threats that they'll be fired, then what effect will that have on the robber's willingness to threaten a bank teller?

An ounce of prevention, or a pound of cure? It seems to me this policy of appeasing the robber or be fired tends towards the pound side.I think it boils down to which alternative is predictably the safest for all concerned. Naturally there are no guarantees.

[ConstitutionHugger]

On what grounds? He admitted he broke the company policy.

Personal Preservation trumps company policy. He resisted because he felt threatened, he chased the man down as an instinct.

If thats the way you see it then letting the robber get out of the bank as fast as possible is easily your best bet at personal preservation and the safety of your employees and customers.
Not really, the pocket that the keys to the register in was the same pocket that I kept my pistol in. All of the pants that I wore had a pocket in them that was a tad higher than where the keys were. I could draw and shoot without taking my hand out of my pocket.

[ConstitutionHugger]

Exactly. You don't know who you're dealing with.

How are you going to shoot him? If you are obviously armed, you likely won't get robbed. So we have to assume the gun you are to use is out of sight (possibly reach?).

Even if it is within reach, you are going to have move pretty quickly to execute your plan. You already have a gun drawn on you.

Have you ever drawn on another person before? Stared down the barrel of a gun?

How do you honestly see this ending?

Yes I have drawn on someone before, the thug decided pretty quickly to get out of my vehicle and find an easier target, he found out you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Yes I have stared down the barrel of a gun, not a comforting sight, the barrel of that 9MM Glock looked as big as a beach ball, luckily it turned out to be a case of mistaken Identity by the police.

[gdoane]

I think it boils down to which alternative is predictably the safest for all concerned. Naturally there are no guarantees.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/bcs/bcs2008/bank_crime_2008q4.htm

According to the FBI, last year there were 1,645 crimes against banks with the loot taken being a total of some $15.4 Million. That's an average take per bank robbery of $9,400, a strong incentive for a crime.

To combat that, a strong disincentive is needed.

A guy at the bank to kick the ass of anybody who robs the place would be a pretty good disincentive. Give out licenses like James Bond, immunity from prosecution for anything that happens to the despicable bank robber.

A couple of good beat-downs that make the Rodney King incident look like a beauty contest would be a good way to dissuade idiot bank robbers in a way their pea brains can understand.

A bit of publicity on the statistics at the banks wouldn't be bad either. Point out that there were three deaths in bank robberies during 2008... and every time it was the perp who bought the farm.

[jimjames418]

To combat that, a strong disincentive is needed.

A guy at the bank to kick the ass of anybody who robs the place would be a pretty good disincentive. Give out licenses like James Bond, immunity from prosecution for anything that happens to the despicable bank robber.

A couple of good beat-downs that make the Rodney King incident look like a beauty contest would be a good way to dissuade idiot bank robbers in a way their pea brains can understand.
I would go with the idea that a system installed that would close and lock all the doors when the silent alarm was pushed would be the best disincentive. Sure you lock the bad guys in with the good guys, but they ain't gonna run away.

[DLaw911]

I would go with the idea that a system installed that would close and lock all the doors when the silent alarm was pushed would be the best disincentive. Sure you lock the bad guys in with the good guys, but they ain't gonna run away.Oh that's a great idea. Maybe they could all become friends and drink beers together while waiting for the police to arrive.

[gdoane]

Oh that's a great idea. Maybe they could all become friends and drink beers together while waiting for the police to arrive.

You'll need something stronger than beers. 39% of apprehended bank robbers are addicted to narcotics. I don't see much good in being locked in with an armed crackhead desperado.

What I'd rather see is a poison gas system, which kills in 24 hours if no antidote is given but harmless if the antidote is administered. Of course, victims get the antidote easily, but the perp needs to come to the cops with his hands on top of his head and walking backwards if he doesn't want to die.

Only 30% of bank robberies are solved, but if the perps got a dose and had to turn themselves in or die, the clearance rate would get a lot closer to 100%.

[ConstitutionHugger]

I would go with the idea that a system installed that would close and lock all the doors when the silent alarm was pushed would be the best disincentive. Sure you lock the bad guys in with the good guys, but they ain't gonna run away.
Great idea lock a likely armed predator in with likely unarmed prey <sarcasm off>

[ThrowCop]

That was a very brave also but very stupid thing to do.


I would have fired him.

[Justus]

I'm not disagreeing with that..........I don't know why he was working in a bank in the first place.


Maybe he gets some kind of rush getting robbed and chasing down the robber? Someone else quoted the article saying that he's worked other retail jobs and was robbed before... Maybe he thought he would get lucky being a bank teller :eh:

[James Juno]

What's wrong with liking the chase? The guy chased down a bad guy, unarmed on foot and took him in to custody. He's 30 years old and obviously has a decent background, or he wouldn't be working in a bank. A certain degree of aggressive competativeness is required for a police officer.

In fact, having taking police psychological examinations (such as the MMPI) and knowing how they're scored........being a bit of an adrenaline junkie is not a disqualifying characteristic........police Psych exam scores for qualified applicants are supposed to score a bit higher than the average member of the population in personal aggressiveness.



It's interesting what the lay public believes about the kind of personality that should be hired as a police officer........it's all relevant to what they're thinking about at the time. If they're imagining getting pulled over by an officer, they want to hire the kindest, most laid back inoffensive officer imaginable. Change the scenario to which officer you want dealing with the violent gang members who set up shop down the block or the home invader who's currently ransacking their living while they're hiding in their closet and it becomes entirely different.

Spot on! Sounds to me like this guy's been missing his calling.

[DLaw911]

You'll need something stronger than beers. 39% of apprehended bank robbers are addicted to narcotics. I don't see much good in being locked in with an armed crackhead desperado.

What I'd rather see is a poison gas system, which kills in 24 hours if no antidote is given but harmless if the antidote is administered. Of course, victims get the antidote easily, but the perp needs to come to the cops with his hands on top of his head and walking backwards if he doesn't want to die.

Only 30% of bank robberies are solved, but if the perps got a dose and had to turn themselves in or die, the clearance rate would get a lot closer to 100%.That's too sci-fi for me Gene. I prefer a revolving door exit. If the person leaving is a crook, just push a button and leave him banging his head on bullet proof glass.

[gdoane]

Taht's too sci-fi for me Gene. I prefer a revolving door exit. If the person leaving is a crook, just push a button and leave him banging his head on bullet proof glass.

The problem with that plan would be accomplices. If there are accomplices and they've got a buddy stuck in the revolving door, then you're in the same situation you had with the locking door that puts the customers and the desperadoes stuck together.

My poison gas plan is ingenious in that even if you don't gas the bastards, they won't ever know if you did or you didn't so for the whole day after the robbery, these crooks will be sweating bullets wondering the age old question... Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?

[DLaw911]

The problem with that plan would be accomplices. If there are accomplices and they've got a buddy stuck in the revolving door, then you're in the same situation you had with the locking door that puts the customers and the desperadoes stuck together.

My poison gas plan is ingenious in that even if you don't gas the bastards, they won't ever know if you did or you didn't so for the whole day after the robbery, these crooks will be sweating bullets wondering the age old question... Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?Well how about banks have bullet proof glass separating the customers from the bankers.

[Wookinstien]

On Friday I would have closed my account explaining that the bank was wrong and I would not associate my business with a bank filled with wimps.

[Antrel]

I work for a local credit union, and like any other financial institution, we're told to comply with a robber's demands, whether or not a weapon is visible. I'd like to say I'd follow protocol and comply, but as a young veteran, I may instinctively react differently to being threatened.

There are a number of reasons for the banks to encourage compliance, and curbing robbery as a crime altogether is at the bottom of the list. No bank wants to be the bank where a customer was killed or held hostage because an employee refused to hand over insured money. Customers expect their money to be secured, and I'd imagine more importantly, their lives as well in such a situation.

As someone mentioned earlier, it's all about accountability.

[smyrna]

He should have been fired for putting others in harms way. He will also probably be hired by another bank so that they can get favorable publicity.

[sgtmac_46]

He's obviously brave but he needs to follow his companies policies if he wants to work there.

I agree.......if he wants to chase down bad guys perhaps being a bank teller isn't his calling.

[sgtmac_46]

ACCUSED ROBBER FILES SUIT AGAINST BANK

Excoriated Press, August 2, 2009

A Seattle area transient, following a foiled robbery, decided to press forward with a lawsuit against Key Bank of Seattle for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder inflicted when a teller didn't fork over the cash like all the other good tellers do.

"I was expecting payday, and instead I had to run for my freedom!" bawled the transient. "Those tellers aren't supposed to act like men! Next time I'm sticking to robbing the girls, and I'm suing the pants off of this guy too!"

A Key Bank of Seattle spokesman said of the lawsuit "We'll probably settle, after all we wanted to give money to this guy in the first place."



'Lawyers for the victim (transient), the law firm of Boyd, Dewey, Cheatum and Howe, stated that this kind of unprovoked aggression will not stand unopposed.'

[gdoane]

Well how about banks have bullet proof glass separating the customers from the bankers.

Two words: Hostage Situation.

The bank robbers tend to pick Mondays and Fridays.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/bcs/bcs2008/bank_crime_2008q4.htm

Why? Those are the busiest bank days and that's when the money is likely to be had.

Bank robbers want money and they'll kill to get it, and they don't care who. Teller, customer, they don't care. All bulletproof glass does is make it so that it'll be customers instead of tellers that the guns get pointed at.

[sgtmac_46]

Maybe because of something in his background that's the best he could get. But this is only a hunch.

I kind of doubt it......Banks do a pretty thorough background on tellers these days. Can't be too careful with the money handlers. Any crime involving theft, larceny, misrepresentation of moral turpitude in general would ensure someone would not be hired by a bank as a teller.

[sgtmac_46]

I think it boils down to which alternative is predictably the safest for all concerned. Naturally there are no guarantees.

I actually believe it boils down to a perception of liability......there seems to be a concept that a recommendation to do nothing and cooperate that results in death or serious physical injury is less of a liability than a recommendation to do something that results in death or serious physical injury, regardless of the reality.

For example the recommendation that passengers and crew cooperate in airplane hi-jackings was seen as less of a liability, even if it made hi-jackings more likely.

The recommendation that students and teachers not actively resist a 'hostage taker' was seen as less of a liability, even if it made the job of an active shooter easier.

The reality is that perception of liability drives such recommendations far more than a rational assessment of the reality of the threat.

[gdoane]

I kind of doubt it......Banks do a pretty thorough background on tellers these days. Can't be too careful with the money handlers. Any crime involving theft, larceny, misrepresentation of moral turpitude in general would ensure someone would not be hired by a bank as a teller.


It's rather unusual for a guy to be working as a teller, at least in my experience. Probably 9 out of 10 times that I walk into a bank, it's exclusively females behind the counter. I think that's unusual, because women aren't as naturally strong in math skills as men are, and yet in financial institutions they're the majority of the work force.

[Pudge]

As for the 'Always cooperate with robbers' line of argument.....that's more about liability than safety. If you're told to cooperate, and you get killed, the bank isn't liable.......if you're encouraged to resist, however, and get killed, the bank is liable.

If we were really serious about dealing with armed robbery, we'd encourage EVERYONE to resist.........how many hi-jackings did we have AFTER 9/11? How many are we likely to have? Why? Because as soon as you stood up in a plane post 9/11, and starting giving orders, everyone on the plane would BEAT YOU TO DEATH!

But that will never happen.......but we still encourage some acts through passivity.

It's the same with delivery drivers. We're told to comply, not resist, and in fact, corporate stores like Domino's and Pizza Hut will not allow drivers to arm themselves. So, they get to drive through seedy neighborhoods until 2 AM, sometimes later, with a lit car topper that says "I HAVE FOOD AND MONEY, PLEASE ROB ME", and thus, a driver is robbed and oftentimes injured or murdered.

What an emasculated society we are turning into. Roll over and give in when someone threatens your life and your property, and all you will do is invite that kind of treatment again and again.

[gdoane]

It's the same with delivery drivers. We're told to comply, not resist, and in fact, corporate stores like Domino's and Pizza Hut will not allow drivers to arm themselves. So, they get to drive through seedy neighborhoods until 2 AM, sometimes later, with a lit car topper that says "I HAVE FOOD AND MONEY, PLEASE ROB ME", and thus, a driver is robbed and oftentimes injured or murdered.

What an emasculated society we are turning into. Roll over and give in when someone threatens your life and your property, and all you will do is invite that kind of treatment again and again.

What happened with delivery drivers here is that some areas are "redlined" and the pizza places won't deliver in them. I found out because I work in a pretty bad neighborhood (four jails within a half mile kind of bad) and I tried to order pizza delivery for a surprise shop lunch/party. Pizza Hut? No dice. Little Caesar's? No way. Domino's used the "no" in their name.

I had to run to get the pies myself. Six pies (pizza math is 2 slices per person for one pizza serves four so if there are 20 people you get 6 pizzas because some people pig out) and they wouldn't deliver six pies even if I gave them a Visa, a Mastercard and my driver's license number. Nope! Not in THAT area! It's the forbidden land for the Pepperoni Patrol.

I kind of feel bad for the homeowners around there. I mean seriously, if your neighborhood is too bad for pizza delivery, then you're never going to sell your house.

Maybe if the homeowners were empowered and had guns, the neighborhood wouldn't be so bad.

[ConstitutionHugger]

It's the same with delivery drivers. We're told to comply, not resist, and in fact, corporate stores like Domino's and Pizza Hut will not allow drivers to arm themselves. So, they get to drive through seedy neighborhoods until 2 AM, sometimes later, with a lit car topper that says "I HAVE FOOD AND MONEY, PLEASE ROB ME", and thus, a driver is robbed and oftentimes injured or murdered.

What an emasculated society we are turning into. Roll over and give in when someone threatens your life and your property, and all you will do is invite that kind of treatment again and again.

I used to work at a pharmacy while in college as a delivery driver, I was driving a little drug truck that basically said "I HAVE MONEY AND DRUGS PLEASE ROB ME!!" and the areas that I delivered to were so covered in illegal drugs that I would come home every day with a contact high just from walking to their doors. Luckily the owners of the pharmacy said nothing about me carrying. Matter of fact me and the majority owner would sit and look at each other's guns when it wasn't busy.
There needs to be more businesses with that kind of attitude towards guns that the pharmacy had/has, i predict much less crimewould occur. It was also a well known fact that a loaded 38spcl Smith& Wesson was in a drawer in the Pharmacy

[DLaw911]

I actually believe it boils down to a perception of liability......there seems to be a concept that a recommendation to do nothing and cooperate that results in death or serious physical injury is less of a liability than a recommendation to do something that results in death or serious physical injury, regardless of the reality.

For example the recommendation that passengers and crew cooperate in airplane hi-jackings was seen as less of a liability, even if it made hi-jackings more likely.

The recommendation that students and teachers not actively resist a 'hostage taker' was seen as less of a liability, even if it made the job of an active shooter easier.

The reality is that perception of liability drives such recommendations far more than a rational assessment of the reality of the threat.I think that's good advice for many people, but we live in a world of people who don't rationalze, who have slow reactions, bad eyesight, bad perception, bad attitudes, who are on medications and drugs, and who might be legally packing.

In any event it often times seems that it's dammed if you do and damned if you don't.

[sgtmac_46]

I think that's good advice for many people, but we live in a world of people who don't rationalze, who have slow reactions, bad eyesight, bad perception, bad attitudes, who are on medications and drugs, and who might be legally packing.

In any event it often times seems that it's dammed if you do and damned if you don't.

Crisis situations often require a response that cannot be pre-planned......that's why they are considered 'crises'.

[sgtmac_46]

It's the same with delivery drivers. We're told to comply, not resist, and in fact, corporate stores like Domino's and Pizza Hut will not allow drivers to arm themselves. So, they get to drive through seedy neighborhoods until 2 AM, sometimes later, with a lit car topper that says "I HAVE FOOD AND MONEY, PLEASE ROB ME", and thus, a driver is robbed and oftentimes injured or murdered.

What an emasculated society we are turning into. Roll over and give in when someone threatens your life and your property, and all you will do is invite that kind of treatment again and again.

Exactly! It's simple economics from the point of view of the robber........in many of those neighborhoods the risk is low........he knows your policy is to give him the money and not argue or fight, he knows you're not armed..........and his odd's of getting caught in those neighborhoods is pretty darned low.........making it a far safer form of robbery than knocking over a liquor store full of cameras and a possibly armed owner.

[gdoane]

I think that's good advice for many people, but we live in a world of people who don't rationalze, who have slow reactions, bad eyesight, bad perception, bad attitudes, who are on medications and drugs, and who might be legally packing.

In any event it often times seems that it's dammed if you do and damned if you don't.

About 3/4 of criminals are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs at the time of their arrest. Crimes are not committed by stable, clean and sober people for the most part so treating these villains as if they were rational beings hardly ever works.

I plan to shoot. I am legally packing, I hold a concealed carry weapons permit and I hate people who use drugs. I'll be damned if they're going to get a dime of mine to finance their filthy drug habits. I'm not going to try to be reasonable and I'm not going to play social worker with the likes of them.

[Pudge]

What happened with delivery drivers here is that some areas are "redlined" and the pizza places won't deliver in them. I found out because I work in a pretty bad neighborhood (four jails within a half mile kind of bad) and I tried to order pizza delivery for a surprise shop lunch/party. Pizza Hut? No dice. Little Caesar's? No way. Domino's used the "no" in their name.

I had to run to get the pies myself. Six pies (pizza math is 2 slices per person for one pizza serves four so if there are 20 people you get 6 pizzas because some people pig out) and they wouldn't deliver six pies even if I gave them a Visa, a Mastercard and my driver's license number. Nope! Not in THAT area! It's the forbidden land for the Pepperoni Patrol.

I kind of feel bad for the homeowners around there. I mean seriously, if your neighborhood is too bad for pizza delivery, then you're never going to sell your house.

Maybe if the homeowners were empowered and had guns, the neighborhood wouldn't be so bad.

Is it realy bad living near prisons or jails? George Carlin used to have a bit about wanting to live near the jail because if someone did escape, they wouldn't want to stick around.

I think that Dominos was sued over redlining (the 'R' word) but if I am wrong, then they definitely fear inviting a lawsuit. They wait until their drivers suffer and possibly die before they take any action like that.

[gdoane]

Is it realy bad living near prisons or jails? George Carlin used to have a bit about wanting to live near the jail because if someone did escape, they wouldn't want to stick around.

Well, consider this: prisoners get visitors in jail, and mostly the friends of the bad guy aren't much better than the bad guy is. Birds of a feather and that sort of thing. So, when you lock up a bunch of bad hombres, you attract their buddies to the area and the buddies of bad men aren't usually boy scouts themselves.

That's why the jails here run wants and warrants on jail visitors. They catch a lot of idiots that way and more than a few visitors get "invited" to spend a night or two in the hoosegow themselves.

I think that Dominos was sued over redlining (the 'R' word) but if I am wrong, then they definitely fear inviting a lawsuit. They wait until their drivers suffer and possibly die before they take any action like that.

That may vary by state. Here businesses reserve the right to refuse service.

[ConstitutionHugger]

About 3/4 of criminals are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs at the time of their arrest. Crimes are not committed by stable, clean and sober people for the most part so treating these villains as if they were rational beings hardly ever works.

I plan to shoot. I am legally packing, I hold a concealed carry weapons permit and I hate people who use drugs. I'll be damned if they're going to get a dime of mine to finance their filthy drug habits. I'm not going to try to be reasonable and I'm not going to play social worker with the likes of them.


110% in agreement with you on that