Seattle Bank Teller Fired for Chasing, Apprehending Robber

[PocketProtector]

Huh? Back before the pussification of America this guy woulda been a hero right ?? I'm just sayin'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...est=latestnews


SEATTLE — A Seattle bank teller has lost his job because he ran down a would-be bank robber and held him until police arrived.

Jim Nicholson, who worked at a Key Bank branch, says he understands the bank's policy that employees comply with robbery demands and avoid dangerous confrontations. But he tells The Seattle Times that his instincts took over when the man demanded money during the Tuesday incident.

Nicholson says he tried to grab the man, then chased him several blocks before knocking him down with help from a passer-by. The man turned out to be unarmed.

The 30-year-old Nicholson was fired Thursday. Key Bank officials declined to comment, but Seattle police and the FBI say they advise tellers against acting against robbers. Instead, police Sgt. Sean Whitcomb says, they should be good witnesses and comply with demands unless their personal safety is in jeopardy.

[JP8]

I guess by keeping the guy on or giving him a raise their legal department thought it'd be sending the wrong message. Also, by severing their ties to the teller, they're also hoping to avoid any potential lawsuits filed by the suspect against the teller. Sounds like a purely legal move.

Such is life when lawyers roam freely.

[MikeinPhilly]

I guess by keeping the guy on or giving him a raise their legal department thought it'd be sending the wrong message. Also, by severing their ties to the teller, they're also hoping to avoid any potential lawsuits filed by the suspect against the teller. Sounds like a purely legal move.

Such is life when lawyers roam freely.

Definately a legal move, what company isn't afraid of being sued in this day and age? To bad for the employee though, I am sure it will be tough getting a new job after being fired.

[kht428]

Another disgrace. WTF has happened to our country. The law abiding are supposed to just curl up, cower, and comply with the demands of the lawless? Is this really where we want our country to end up?
And as far as the bank covering their ass legally to avoid a lawsuit, well that's just BS. If this guy were touted for being a hero by the media and the bank and the police I doubt there would be too many repercussions. However thanks to our wonderful media there will be no such fanfare only more criminal worship. We'll have to hear about how the robber had such a tough life and now he's been beat up by the teller and can no longer work wah wah wah wah wah

I can feel my bloodpressure boiling I'm going to go have a coke and a smile

[JP8]

I foresee in the future, a commercial aired during the Jerry Springer show:

"Were you injured while attempting an unarmed robbery? If so, you may be entitled to compensation. Call the law offices of Rosendouche, Douche and Douche to get our legal team on YOUR side and get you the settlement YOU deserve. Call 1-800-JIZ-BAGS....again call 1-800...JIZ....BAGS"

[captaincrunch]

I guess by keeping the guy on or giving him a raise their legal department thought it'd be sending the wrong message.

This sounds accurate.

Also, by severing their ties to the teller, they're also hoping to avoid any potential lawsuits filed by the suspect against the teller. Sounds like a purely legal move.

This does not. It doesn't matter is the teller is fired or not, he was employeed by the bank at the time of the incident and the bank could still get sued because of his actions. With that being said, I don't think this robber is going to sue because someone chased and stopped him.

Such is life when lawyers roam freely.

No, such is life when everyones first thought is lawsuit. How many times do we see the response, get a lawyer and sue on this board over stupid ass shit?? Answer is, all the time.

[JP8]

This does not. It doesn't matter is the teller is fired or not, he was employeed by the bank at the time of the incident and the bank could still get sued because of his actions. With that being said, I don't think this robber is going to sue because someone chased and stopped him.

I was just thinking they would say something along the lines of as soon as he pursued the robber, he broke his employment agreement...who knows. By firing him, they would only solidify this.

No, such is life when everyones first thought is lawsuit. How many times do we see the response, get a lawyer and sue on this board over stupid ass shit?? Answer is, all the time.

I don't want to get into a chicken and the egg argument but I think you got my point.

[captaincrunch]

I was just thinking they would say something along the lines of as soon as he pursued the robber, he broke his employment agreement...who knows. By firing him, they would only solidify this.

It's a good thought but I think they are way more worried about the next employee that does this. This time the guy was unarmed but what if next time the robber being chased blows the head of the employee chasing him off. Then the family of the employee is suing and they point back to this case and say you didn't do anything to that guy so you must encourage robber chasing.

I don't want to get into a chicken and the egg argument but I think you got my point.

I hear you.

[Nic]

It's a good thought but I think they are way more worried about the next employee that does this. This time the guy was unarmed but what if next time the robber being chased blows the head of the employee chasing him off. Then the family of the employee is suing and they point back to this case and say you didn't do anything to that guy so you must encourage robber chasing.

Bingo! My thoughts exactly.

[dc dalton]

Yup this is simple insurance regulations stuff and them covering their asses. Had the robber been armed and the employee gotten hurt he would have sued the shit out of them ... hate to say it but policy is policy and the guy should have followed it. I can understand his reasoning but truth is truth.