There was a bank robbery here in Moscow, ID this afternoon. Somedude with a big bushy black wig, black-face makeup and loose clothing walked out with an undisclosed about of cash and got away. No story at all on how he got someone at the bank to hand over the cash, as it is reported as unknown whether was armed.
I believe it would be good bank policy to immediately open fire on anyone who attempts to rob the place, no questions asked, but that’s just me.
I don’t know when banks stopped having armed guards, but certainly in recent years the nightly TV “news” is full of bank robberies where nothing is done about the robber. In a substantial fraction of the cases, there isn’t even an actual robbery; the only tool used by the robber is “a note”.
Maybe they figure it’s fake money anyway, so who cares? Isn’t that the way we’ve been heading for the last several generations? “Meh…”
I do know one thing; if bank robbers started getting killed instantly, every time they went in and “presented their notes”, bank robbery would come to a halt in this country, right quick. Instead we turn banks into “gun free zones” so as to protect the robbers. It’s just another form of “Redistributive Change…When you spread the wealth around, everyone benefits.”
It’s been like this for years. You’re just noticing it? Notes are the most common way of committing bank robbery.
Don’t put words in my mouth, so to speak. Go back and read the post. I never said the use of notes was unfamiliar, new, surprising or unpredictable.
All I said was that the method of robbery was not in the report, and then you made up something out of that, and ran with it. That too is a common behavior, and I am quite familiar with it.
Try again, Sister.
I am pretty sure that the banks have a “comply with demands, let them have the money” policy, possibly influenced by their lawyers view of potential liability if a customer or employee is hurt when a robbery is met with resistance.
Talking of perverse beliefs, here in Oz, an armed security guard shot and killed a robber of an armoured car. The guard had already been shot, and then the robber tried to run her down during his getaway.
The poor woman had to convince the court that the money was at risk in order that the legal system could find her action in killing her assailant was justified.
You don’t actually need a gun anymore, they are trained to respond to any statement like “this is a robbery” by just handing over the money.
Most banks are covered by a blanket bond that includes robbery, so they don’t do any more than the underwriter demands, and the underwriter isn’t going to risk the bad publicity of a “you don’t get covered unless you fight back” clause in the insurance.
Although I can see where you are coming from with the unlikely inclusion of a “you don’t get covered unless you fight back” clause, it seems more that the insurance company, and maybe the banks’ own lawyers, are saying ““you don’t get covered if you DO fight back”.
Real bank robbers always use computers now in this country. Most branches don’t keep enough cash laying around to make it worth robbing. A policy that says ‘Hand over money that is fully insured to reduce the anxiety of this moron that has no idea what a bad idea this is.” That’s smart. Just like any other business, the staff is your most expensive resource. Keep it safe at all costs. The police love a good bank robbery, makes the paper and all that.
IIRC, the average take in a bank robbery is less than $5000, and it automatically puts the FBI after you. Plus, they are required to have cameras. The banks quit trying to stop robberies when it all got covered by insurance. It’s cheaper than a guard.
Now, the only reason to try to stop a bank robbery is if shots are fired. Statistically, any time robbers fire a shot, even if shot into the ceiling to get attention, you can expect things to go pear shaped. Shooting signals that the robber(s) have little self-control, and can target people for no real reason. Even waving a gun is a bad sign, for that matter.
Plus, it’s always bad to try and stop a robbery in progress. That’s usually when the robbers decide they need hostages to get away. (This was the big mistake the cops in Stockton or Fresno made that ended up with the hostage killed.)
Giving criminals what they want equals encouraging more of them to do more of the same. I would expect all Progressives to embrace that behavior. However, this is an example of a First Principles issue, and Progressives by definition have no understanding of First Principles.
Progressives would demonstrate and reinforce the idea that crime pays, rather than get hurt trying to stop it in progress. Thus they guarantee more crime.
First Principle says you stand up to evil, even if it means a high risk to yourself. Thus no robbery takes place unopposed, thus there are vastly fewer robberies, and thus the world is safer, even for the Progressives who’ll never understand or appreciate it.
Note it took self-organized ordinary Americans less than 2 hours to discard several decade’s worth of Official Doctrine about how to (non) respond to airline hijackings.
Isn’t “give them what they want” the modern idiot’s recommendation to rape victims?
Yes, “Modern Idiot” being the Progressive or similar ideology.
America could never have been defeated by outside forces in a direct confrontation. That is why we’re being re-programmed culturally. We must be Fundamentally Transformed into a weak, docile people, too afraid to act in our own defense, too distracted by trivialities and pleasures, too intimidated by the notion of what someone else may think of us, whether there may be some law we may be violating, or who may sue us or even say bad things about us. In short; we must be separated from bedrock principles (the holder of which is now to be see as “closed-minded”).
And it’s working to a large extent.
Today’s Blaze has an item about a bank robber stopped by a CC permit holder. This was in Michigan.