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

  • Soper
    replied
    Originally posted by Lone Wolf View Post
    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.
    So...you know WHO these BGs are and where they’re at? You have all these mad skillz that make you better trained than the Police? You must be The A Team... Your above statement reiterates WHY you are a security guard, and why we should feel nervous that you are a security guard

    Leave a comment:


  • Lone Wolf
    replied
    Squid, Lunch Meat, well said, both of you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    Originally posted by Lone Wolf View Post
    Maybe if banks put up big reward money, thieves would think twice about robbing them because they knew they would be hunted down without mercy.
    Mercy is for the weak. Here, in the streets, in competition. A man confronts you, he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy

    Leave a comment:


  • Squid
    replied
    Originally posted by Lone Wolf View Post
    Maybe if banks put up big reward money, thieves would think twice about robbing them because they knew they would be hunted down without mercy.
    just like with asking tellers to activate any Drop Down barriers, you gotta be extra pro-active in making sure you don't "trigger" some event, like Bounty Hunters going nuts on public.

    But if becomes known that one banking firm offers a huge reward that will have all your shady buddies THINKING about turning you in, any robber is gonna cross those banks off his list of prospects.

    IMO a year's pay and benefits for an FBI Speical Agent or town's 2nd highest ranking police officer would be about right. About $250Gs.

    Plus, that would put in snitch's tiny mind that "I can as much as the Top Cop makes in a year with a phone call, thus I'm not a snitch, I'm a bad ass pimp who gots the knowledge to play the game".

    All snitches (and cops) are painfully aware of their mental shortcomings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lone Wolf
    replied
    Maybe if banks put up big reward money, thieves would think twice about robbing them because they knew they would be hunted down without mercy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Consolewatcher
    replied
    Originally posted by Lunch Meat View Post

    Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. Squid's example will never happen period.
    He posted an example of X happening, and said that Y would be the outcome. You said that he was wrong, and that Z would be the outcome. I pointed out why if X happened, then something close to Y would be what would happen, not Z. Now, all you are doing is saying that it's pointless because X will never happen. You're right; it probably never would, but *if* it does, Y will be the outcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Consolewatcher
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Squid
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Consolewatcher
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Squid
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X