Jim Nicholson - Good job, or Bad job?

[SpankyDmonkey]

Jim Nicholson was a Bank Teller in Seattle, that ended up taking a robbery into his own hands. When a person walked into the bank, placed a bag on the desk in front of him, and demanded money from the bank, Jim Nicholson.. instead of giving the money, pushed the bag off the desk, and grabbed the robber, and demanded to see his weapon. The robber, scared shitless, decided to run from the bank, where Jim Nicholson lunged over the desk, and chased the robber a couple of blocks down from the bank untill he got him, and held him down until the police came to arrest him. What was his reward? Getting FIRED from the bank.. for not following Bank Policy to immediatly comply with bank robbers, to get them out of the bank so they can initiate a lock down. I just wanted to know other people's opinion of this, for this is utter bull crap. I personally believe this guy did the best thing, and here is my reason.

Ok.. people believe this guy did a bad thing because he could have endangered himself, the bank, or the other workers withen the bank. Well uhh WTF? They were already in danger due to the fact that UNARMED ROBBERS are now robbing banks.. and also the fact that robbers are still robbing banks! If people just say: Ok, heres the money, you can leave. Then robbers will never stop, and criminals will still continue with their way of life by stealing money from banks etc. Now, when you scare the living shit out of a criminal, to the point where they will crap their pants and run from the bank, they wont do it again, for they will be scared. I understand there will always be criminals in this world, but we can reduce them by growing iron nuts from a tree, attaching them to our bodies, and fighting back. If everyone would fight back, then not only banks, but homes could also be much more safer. This guy did this, even though it wasn't even his money to begin with, he did it cause he was sick of it. There are some people who agree with this statement and say he should enlist in the police department. I personally say no to that however, for they will just find another reason why it wont be safe with him in the force. I am not insulting police, although it is a fact that I was never content with their decisions, but that is not what this thread is about. I personally think this guy should become a neighborhood vigilante. This dude can become batman (LOL) But he can seriously atleast freak out some people and influence others to fight back and act.

Anyways, say yes if you believe this guy did a good thing, or no if you believe he was a reckless idiot that could have gotten himself killed. Im sure he wouldn't have cared if he died though, people like this have no fear of death.

 

[Gilles]

He shouldn't have done anything. It's a good policy.

 

[Joe-black-5]

That is one Braveheart Badass son of a Gun .

 

[Zombie]

You can never know though if the robber is faster and shoots you, that endangers other civilians too if you go down. I think that's the reason for the Bank's policy. Despite that, if you succeed in carrying something like this through, it sure shouldn't be followed by dismissal.

 

[Septimus]

I support his action, his action could scared the ass at those who trying to act as John Dillinger.

Think about it, if the robber manage to escape. He could possibly purchase a real weapon to do it again.

For those who don't know who is John Dillinger, click here for the info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dillinger

 

[oh_snap]

Unneeded risk. You don't do something that could potentially risk other lives. Preventing someone from stealing money is never worth losing a life. It was quite stupid of him to do anything but comply.

~Snap

 

[Tyranid]

He took a massive risk and got lucky. Now if the robber would have had a gun and this would have resulted in the loss of civilian life then I bet you wouldn't think of him as highly. None the less I think he did a good job.

 

[Hakeem]

I'd hire him.

You can never know though if the robber is faster and shoots you, that endangers other civilians too if you go down.

No it doesn't. You were the only one doing anything. He doesn't need to shoot anyone else.

Unneeded risk.

There is no risk since the robber was unarmed; and he knew this. There is no risk if he had a concealed weapon, because there is no need to fire it yet. If he did reveal a weapon, everything would go according to policy. The robber isn't likely to dig himself a deeper hole.

Now if the robber would have had a gun and this would have resulted in the loss of civilian life

--then I sure as hell wouldn't blame anyone besides the shooter.

 

[Joe-black-5]

there was lots of comments against him but none voted for the second choice.

 

[Nbah]

That's because nobody would actually say he's an idiot. They just think what he did was risky and so do I.

 

[oh_snap]

I'd hire him.
There is no risk since the robber was unarmed; and he knew this. There is no risk if he had a concealed weapon, because there is no need to fire it yet. If he did reveal a weapon, everything would go according to policy. The robber isn't likely to dig himself a deeper hole.

And? If he had a concealed weapon, he could have easily shot him for grabbing a hold of him. To take the risk that he did not have a weapon was not worth it. You don't know the psychology of the robber, he could have easily been a druggy looking to rob a bank to get a fix. And in that case, he would have been quite desperate, and his actions clearly not logical. There's just several factors to consider, and so many things that could have gone wrong due to the teller's actions.

No it doesn't. You were the only one doing anything. He doesn't need to shoot anyone else.

He doesn't need to shoot anyone else, yes. But it's quite possible that someone else could get shot by accident.

--then I sure as hell wouldn't blame anyone besides the shooter.

So, if you tried to stop someone robbing a bank, and 8 people die because of it, it wouldn't be your fault, at all? Your direct actions caused the robber to act in that manner, nothing else did. Cause and effect.

~Snap

 

[Pyramidhe@d]

pencil-pusher's idiocy if you ask me. he should have gotten a damn pay rise.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

So, if you tried to stop someone robbing a bank, and 8 people die because of it, it wouldn't be your fault, at all? Your direct actions caused the robber to act in that manner, nothing else did. Cause and effect.

You can't actually be blamed for it. It is in a way your fault because you made the robber act like that, but it's still the robber's fault because he chose to do it.
F.ex. If you drive a car and you have a friend with you, and your friend suddenly sees something he likes and looks at that and maybe even points at it, and you get interested and look too and then crash because you didn't focus on the road, it's not your friend's fault. Even though he kinda caused the crash, it was still your choice to also look.

 

[oh_snap]

Legally you can be held responsible. It may not be your fault completely, but there's still responsibility. That's why parents can be sued for actions by their kids.

~Snap

 

[Karawasa]

That's because nobody would actually say he's an idiot. They just think what he did was risky and so do I.

I did, what an idiot.

 

[SpankyDmonkey]

hm, maybe I should have set the pole to Good or Bad, meh no matter. I like hearing everyone's personal opinions on this . My opinion to the response where it could have ended badly is: True, it could have ended badly.. but it didn't. Because that it didnt, he should not have gotten in trouble for this for he succeeded. People are too afraid of what could have happened then what did actually happen. Fear is very powerful, as the guy has scared the robber so most likely he wont do it again... but the other people are afraid of what could have happened so they are firing him? I just find that part a bit strange as well. The fact is that it WORKED.

 

[Hakeem]

If you have a weapon, you'd make it plain to begin with. The only circumstance where you would not is that you are some kind of smooth criminal like you see in movies.

If he had a concealed weapon, he could have easily shot him for grabbing a hold of him.

It wouldn't be necessary. Merely showing the weapon would be enough:

Why yes, I do have a weapon.

You don't know the psychology of the robber,

Generally not, no.

he could have easily been a druggy looking to rob a bank to get a fix.

If that were the case, wouldn't he just steal the drugs? Were this the case, you would be able to tell. Drug addicts don't exactly hide their psychology well.

And in that case, he would have been quite desperate, and his actions clearly not logical.

They were logical up until the guy jumped over the counter. Most people aren't very good at being logical to begin with. Being desperate does not imply downright stupidity.

There's just several factors to consider,

In the set of all cases, yes.

so many things that could have gone wrong due to the teller's actions.

Not at all. He wasn't carrying a weapon. When you are confronted with a case, you consider the factors; it's no longer abstract.

He doesn't need to shoot anyone else, yes. But it's quite possible that someone else could get shot by accident.

It's quite possible that a police officer shoots someone by accident.

So, if you tried to stop someone robbing a bank, and 8 people die because of it, it wouldn't be your fault, at all?

No. You didn't force the robber to shoot anyone. A person is solely responsible for their actions. You are not to blame for the actions of another; you did not control them.

Unless we are talking about mind control. That's different.

Your direct actions caused the robber to act in that manner, nothing else did. Cause and effect.

It was a combination of causes, not your actions alone. One of the primary causes is why the robber is robbing the bank in the first place. That plays perhaps the biggest role. Not every robber is armed and willing to kill.

That's why parents can be sued for actions by their kids.

The reason that is so, is because children have a special place in the law. They are not normally tried as adults.

 

[Pyramidhe@d]

if they are tried at all that is