Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

these Reward for Info (for in this case bank robber) need to be 20-50X higher.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • these Reward for Info (for in this case bank robber) need to be 20-50X higher.

    https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field...m-bank-robbery

    $2500, big woop. Assuming he heisted a measly $20G that still leaves him plenty of cushion for hush money, AND a secret slush fund to go after anyone who takes hush money and still rats.

    As a biz proposition, probably not a good idea for your average low life who would know who the robber was to rat him out for the $2500. $2500 ain't gonna get you out of town, and it wont last long.

    How much does it cost "the system" to otherwise catch a bank robber once the trail goes cold??? I'm guessing well over $100,000 and likely more like a million or more. Not mention the real costs incurred by all sorts of entities due to increased threat of robber still at large, and costs for when he strikes again.

    IMO Rewards should reflect the real value to society of Ratting Out A Bad Guy, and in a case like this should be at least $100,000 but more like $300,000.

    If $100,000+ Rewards were being routinely offered for mundane bank robbery, robbers would be even more worried about their own "social circle" than the FBI. Everyone at the bar is gonna wanna know where everyone else was at 11:23am yesterday.

    Large Rewards would attract smart PRIVATE SECURITY guys willing to work "on spec" and even pass out their own cash for tips.

    Cracks me up when I see $25,000 Reward for some particularly heinous murder. $25G wont even buy a decent used Hyundai. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/ctd...760878910.html https://www.ksbw.com/article/hollist...uspect/1340391
    Last edited by Squid; 12-19-2018, 01:48 PM.

  • #2
    I couldn’t agree more. Make the reward big enough and guys like you and me will go out and do the cop’s jobs for them.

    Comment


    • #3
      The average bank robbery in 2016 netted right around $7,000.

      I think I'm somewhat of an anomaly because I've known two bank robbers pretty well. One was my next door neighbor for about a year. He got caught the very first time he robbed bank within a week and he ended up with less than $800.

      the other guy I went to church with for a couple years before he lost his mind and started robbing banks. He's going to be in jail for the rest of his life and I'm pretty sure his total take was $20,000 none of which he got to keep.

      All that said why should I offer almost three times what was stolen in the robbery for information about it?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Lunch Meat View Post
        The average bank robbery in 2016 netted right around $7,000.

        I think I'm somewhat of an anomaly because I've known two bank robbers pretty well. One was my next door neighbor for about a year. He got caught the very first time he robbed bank within a week and he ended up with less than $800.

        the other guy I went to church with for a couple years before he lost his mind and started robbing banks. He's going to be in jail for the rest of his life and I'm pretty sure his total take was $20,000 none of which he got to keep.

        All that said why should I offer almost three times what was stolen in the robbery for information about it?
        I'm thinking once the Reward goes up the frequency of losses will go way down. Reward only costs if paid, robberies that "don't happen" pay every time. We are in the business of Loss Prevention.

        Around here every Bank of America has G4S guard outside full time at $20+/hr + benefits which works out to about $100,000 billable (7:30am-7:30pm 6days week) per year DEAD LOSS. Word from ex-G4S "Lieutenant" is the guards aren't not there to "keep order" or guard parking spaces, or even "protect employees" or anything else except....... "deter robbery".

        The bank might only loss $7000 in cash but imagine how much they lose from the incident overall. Whole bank full of employees, lost business for at least a day, lots of work re-setting the accounts after robbery, damage to reputation, 6000+ hours of bank teller time when every customer for next 6 months has to ask about it, did they catch him, were you scared, was he cute, etc.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Squid View Post

          I'm thinking once the Reward goes up the frequency of losses will go way down. Reward only costs if paid, robberies that "don't happen" pay every time. We are in the business of Loss Prevention.

          Around here every Bank of America has G4S guard outside full time at $20+/hr + benefits which works out to about $100,000 billable (7:30am-7:30pm 6days week) per year DEAD LOSS. Word from ex-G4S "Lieutenant" is the guards aren't not there to "keep order" or guard parking spaces, or even "protect employees" or anything else except....... "deter robbery".

          The bank might only loss $7000 in cash but imagine how much they lose from the incident overall. Whole bank full of employees, lost business for at least a day, lots of work re-setting the accounts after robbery, damage to reputation, 6000+ hours of bank teller time when every customer for next 6 months has to ask about it, did they catch him, were you scared, was he cute, etc.
          Yup, a bank robbery can have a financial impact far beyond what was actually taken.

          What we have to remember is that the security guard doesn't have to deter anyone from robbing *a* bank. He just has to deter someone from robbing *that* bank. Even if the guard is only a minor deterrence, the robber might find it easier to rob the other bank down the street that doesn't have a security guard.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Consolewatcher View Post

            Yup, a bank robbery can have a financial impact far beyond what was actually taken.

            What we have to remember is that the security guard doesn't have to deter anyone from robbing *a* bank. He just has to deter someone from robbing *that* bank. Even if the guard is only a minor deterrence, the robber might find it easier to rob the other bank down the street that doesn't have a security guard.
            Whats the diff between Private Security for poor people VS rich people?

            When you work for rich clients OF COURSE you can huddle and pow-wow with neighboring guards from competing firms for mutual support and generally keep the 'hood totally locked down. "We are all on same 'team' at the end of the day".

            With poor clients its "we just pay attention to our post, we don't worry about what other people do".

            Banks tend to gather in clusters. I'd rather have two guards that try to "work as a team" keeping each other in sight etc among 4 banks than 4 guards all confined to their own bank, not knowing if its normal for a guard to be at other bank or not and no communication.

            AFAIK, the purpose of the G4S guards (who are required to stay outside the bank at all times) is just that anyone robbing the bank will need an extra person to "handle" the guard and do so out in public. Just like shooting ranges have rules against lone single unknown persons without any existing guns renting guns, its a lot harder to get TWO people crazy enough to try to rob a bank.

            If I didn't know better, G4S likes to hire guards who seem like they might not even fully understand "whats going on" if someone tells them in standard English "don't move, this is a stickup". Around SF Guard will probably think its another aggressive panhandler and regardless of post orders make it his business to evict the bum from premises. Not a good way to start a nice clean bank heist.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Consolewatcher View Post

              Yup, a bank robbery can have a financial impact far beyond what was actually taken.
              There is a passive deterrent measure where the teller pushes a button and a bullet proof screen drops and cuts off the back area of the bank from the robbers. Apparently the screens cost less than $10,000 to install but the management of most banks has determined that bank robberies are so rare that it's not worth the money to install the screens.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lunch Meat View Post

                There is a passive deterrent measure where the teller pushes a button and a bullet proof screen drops and cuts off the back area of the bank from the robbers. Apparently the screens cost less than $10,000 to install but the management of most banks has determined that bank robberies are so rare that it's not worth the money to install the screens.
                IIRC tellers are always supposed to "cooperate with robbers". If the bank policy tells tellers to do something and a robber retaliates the due to bank policy then teller just won the Ghetto Lottery.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Squid View Post

                  IIRC tellers are always supposed to "cooperate with robbers". If the bank policy tells tellers to do something and a robber retaliates the due to bank policy then teller just won the Ghetto Lottery.

                  Sounds good but no. If the teller gets hurt the case gets turned over to whoever the workman's comp insurance provider is and they look at their actuarial tables and pay out whatever the predetermined amount for that injury is.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Lunch Meat View Post


                    Sounds good but no. If the teller gets hurt the case gets turned over to whoever the workman's comp insurance provider is and they look at their actuarial tables and pay out whatever the predetermined amount for that injury is.
                    If a bank teller is told to resist a robber and as a result gets shot and killed or seriously injured, then the bank is going to end up paying A LOT of money to that person and their family. Keep in mind that if (when) it goes to court, the court is likely going to find that the bank was negligent/reckless in expecting their employees to resist a potentially armed robber.

                    It's not only the person who got shot the bank has to worry about. If someone get shot (and remember, it happened because the bank was negligent....) you can bet a bunch of other bank employees are going to claim they are suffering from emotional distress and can't work, nearby businesses can sue for the loss of business caused by evacuations/police response to the shooting, etc..

                    This isn't like a construction site where the employer took reasonable steps to ensure everyone's safety, but an employee still got hurt. In that case, it is a pretty standard amount paid by insurance based upon predetermined tables.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Consolewatcher View Post

                      If a bank teller is told to resist a robber and as a result gets shot and killed or seriously injured, then the bank is going to end up paying A LOT of money to that person and their family. Keep in mind that if (when) it goes to court, the court is likely going to find that the bank was negligent/reckless in expecting their employees to resist a potentially armed robber.

                      It's not only the person who got shot the bank has to worry about. If someone get shot (and remember, it happened because the bank was negligent....) you can bet a bunch of other bank employees are going to claim they are suffering from emotional distress and can't work, nearby businesses can sue for the loss of business caused by evacuations/police response to the shooting, etc..

                      This isn't like a construction site where the employer took reasonable steps to ensure everyone's safety, but an employee still got hurt. In that case, it is a pretty standard amount paid by insurance based upon predetermined tables.

                      Of course, because banks frequently tell their tellers to resist the robbers.

                      Let's try to keep this discussion out of Fantasyland.


                      Here in the real world if the teller abides by their training, offers no resistance and complies with the robber's demands and gets killed anyway the workers comp provider will pay out whatever the rider says they will pay out.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lunch Meat View Post


                        Of course, because banks frequently tell their tellers to resist the robbers.

                        Let's try to keep this discussion out of Fantasyland.
                        which is why I pointed out asking a teller to activate any dropping screens would be problematic.

                        if I was a teller I'm not sure I'd even hit Silent Alarm. If the cops show up and robbers see, or if robbers retreat back into bank, that creates a hostage situation, and don't forget about danger from trigger happy SWAT.

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhNWdYNHCWg
                        At least these guys were more understanding that people might misunderstand poorly worded instructions at gun point than this "professional".
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ooa7wOKHhg

                        I doubt the post robbery scene will be the tellers calmly explaining to police who the regulars are, etc. Its going to be a lot of dumb cops screaming at everyone.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Squid View Post

                          which is why I pointed out asking a teller to activate any dropping screens would be problematic.
                          Apparently the screens drop so fast the robber doesn't have time to react. That said, very few banks have them

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Lunch Meat View Post


                            Of course, because banks frequently tell their tellers to resist the robbers.

                            Let's try to keep this discussion out of Fantasyland.


                            Here in the real world if the teller abides by their training, offers no resistance and complies with the robber's demands and gets killed anyway the workers comp provider will pay out whatever the rider says they will pay out.
                            In Squid's example he said that if a bank policy tells a teller do "do something" (ie, resist) and the bank robber "retaliates" (ie shoots them) then the teller will win the "ghetto lottery". You said that the bank's insurance company would simply pay out x amount. I pointed out that said bank policy would likely be considered "reckless/negligent" by the courts, and they would be entitled to more money, as would other who were affected".

                            Businesses can't completely eliminate risk, but they are expected to take reasonable measures to reduce it as much as reasonably possible. If a business takes those steps, they won't be liable for any injuries suffered by their employees beyond standard "worker's compensation"/disability amounts.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Consolewatcher View Post

                              In Squid's example he said that if a bank policy tells a teller do "do something" (ie, resist) and the bank robber "retaliates" (ie shoots them) then the teller will win the "ghetto lottery". You said that the bank's insurance company would simply pay out x amount. I pointed out that said bank policy would likely be considered "reckless/negligent" by the courts, and they would be entitled to more money, as would other who were affected".

                              Businesses can't completely eliminate risk, but they are expected to take reasonable measures to reduce it as much as reasonably possible. If a business takes those steps, they won't be liable for any injuries suffered by their employees beyond standard "worker's compensation"/disability amounts.
                              Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. Squid's example will never happen period.

                              Comment

                              300x250

                              Collapse

                              Mid 300x250

                              Collapse

                              Taboola

                              Collapse

                              Super Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X