Arming Bank Tellers

[ky_man]

Basically, it comes down to this: Who's responsibility it is to protect bank tellers in the even of crime in their branches? We have had several examples of bank robbery lately here in Louisville:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/ZONE03/70827016
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770821014
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=6931512 (employees shot)

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=296027&highlight=bank+teller

Banks around here provide NO security for their employees. What I don't understand is that this is akin to just putting the money out in the open. A law-abiding, responsible person would not touch what wasn't theirs. If a person wanted to rob the bank, it would just be easier to have the money out so the robber could come in and take what they want!

Banks lately have been designed to be open, airy, lots of windows, little if no counter separation, etc. All this has been done at the expense of the teller's safety! Done so tellers can sell more new 'products' to their customers!

Most arguments against arming tellers begin like this:

"Arming the tellers may be a bad idea, they would end up hurting innocents or themselves...These banks should do like they did in the past...Have an armed guard inside the bank at all times. These banks make billions a year, they can afford a guard..."

-or-

arming and training tellers with hand guns or any weapon, is not going to stop banks from being robbed. No matter how much training a person has with a hand gun, some people are just not fit in the head to possess one...An armed guard is not guarenteed to stop thieves either. I put my money on criminals being more afraid of an armed guard in uniform than a bunch of bank tellers with various weapons...

Hello! If you want to arm the tellers, you don't just give them a gun and turn them loose! Training is required. Why is it that people think police generally have more training than your average CCW holder? The SWAT team, yes. Average cop, no. By the time the SWAT team arrives, tellers could be dead! Luckily, that wasn't the case today.

I'm not suggesting the bank give a handgun to a 20 year old blonde girl and ask her to defend herself! (no offense against blondes, I know a few who can outshoot me!) The tellers need to be capable, responsible individuals who can legally and competently handle a firearm as part of the job requirement..

What's the difference between having a teller shoot the bank robber versus a "trained" officer? What robber would even go into a bank knowing the tellers were armed and capable of ending their lives?

One security guard is a bad idea, what if there are more than one robber? What then? The guard is outmatched and out-gunned. You are still relying on one individual to keep you safe. I don't believe that any one person should be responsible for the lives of others.

I have 4 friends who work at different branches as branch managers who are scared to go to work everyday. It's a sad situation.

 

[matt87]

The idea of 'someone' creating a chain of banks where the staff are allowed or ecouraged to carry has been banied about on this forum before. In my 'ideal bank', I would have compulsary carry (either open or concealed, the former encouraged), but also a qualification session. Passing this would be a condition of employment. Any safety violations would result in immediate dismissal. I'd also buy a bulk load of Glocks, BHPs or something similar so that employees did not have to buy their own. Range would be provided. Longarm under each desk too...

 

[RNB65]

There is no business in existence that better represents the herd/sheeple mentality than big banking. Banking is all about conformity and following the corporate rules to the letter. Guns? Ain't gonna happen. Tellers are expendable.

 

[Steve N]

Some possible scenarios if tellers were armed:

1. Teller shoots bank robber. Robber's family gets a LAWYER to sue bank, teller, everyone else.

2. Teller draws, but robber shoots first, kills teller. Teller's family gets a LAWYER to sue bank, teller, everyone else.

3. Teller shoots innocent customer. Victim's family gets a LAWYER to sue bank, teller, everyone else.

4. Teller draws, robber shoots first, kills innocent customer. Victim's family gets a LAWYER to sue bank, teller, everyone else.

5. Insurance companies pay LAWYERS and ACTUARIES to determine risk, and consequences of risk. Historical payouts, etc. are used to determine possible cost of an action. Bank takes action based on projected costs.

Does anyone see a common thread here? Common sense does not prevail. Its the thread of being tied up in court for the rest of your life and losing everything you have worked for that dictates what a company does to prevent loss.

Many times letting a robber steal money that is insured is cheaper than paying if someone gets hurt.

 

[Linkinlog]

I work at a bank and this is why we have about 4 armed police officers on premises and visible in the lobby at all times. It is a great deterrent. The bank has never been robbed (thank God) and hopefully never will. The crooks look for soft targets. When they see police officers hanging around, I'm sure it quickly changes their mind about robbing our bank.

 

[Steve499]

My local bank doesn't need to arm the tellers or have an armed guard, either. They have that pistol under the red circle/diagonal slash sign thingy on their front entrance.

I don't know why you try to make things so hard!

 

[Standing Wolf]

Insurance companies pay LAWYERS and ACTUARIES to determine risk, and consequences of risk. Historical payouts, etc. are used to determine possible cost of an action. Bank takes action based on projected costs.

We live in terror of lawyers, which I take as a certain indicator we've failed as a culture.

 

[welldoya]

Not too long ago, I saw one of those "dumb crook" videos taken in England.
It was from a bank lobby surveillance camera. A robber came in and announced it was a hold-up. As soon as he said something somebody pushed a button and BAM !! a steel curtain came down in front of the tellers and they were safe. The front door locked and he was a sitting duck just sitting there for the police to arrive. Now why can't the U.S. banks have something like that ?
Several months ago a guy walked into a Wachovia bank in Birmingham Alabama and right off the bat shot and killed a teller for no reason. I guess he just wanted everybody to know he was serious.
I was in a Wachovia a few days later and the tellers were terrified. Heck, I would be too, sitting there with no protection.

 

[XD Fan]

Hey Matt,

Can I work at your bank?


Okay, This does not seem like a terrible idea to me, but I am going to play Devil's Advocate here. My guess is this would be treated with some sort of cost/benefit analysis.

1. People are rarely seriously injured in robberies. -- I could be really wrong about this. I am guessing this because I do not recall hearing of bank robberies resulting in serious inury very often.
2. The money is insured anyway and usually a relatively small amount compared to the bank's total assets.
3. The F.B.I. is really good at catching bank robbers. -- I got this from a movie...I know really bad source of information.

SO

Why start a gun fight when the money will come back, the crooks will probably get caught, and probably no one will get hurt anyway. Where as a crossfire with innocent customers in the middle is really bad for business. Furthermore, all the blissninny customers would blanch pure white upon seeing a firearm on the teller's hip.

ON THE OTHER HAND

If I was a bank robber, the only time I would set foot in Matt87's bank would be the first time I cased the joint (more movietalk), then I would promptly leave and never return.

 

[XD Fan]

Good point, Steve499.

 

[marv]

FWIW, back in the day Colt had a series of snubbie revolvers called Banker's Special in .32 and .38 cal. Looked just like the Detective Special.

 

[Andrewsky]

In my bank there would be M240s with spade grips on tripods bolted to the counter.

 

[2RCO]

As a former banker in a not so great Neighborhood. Bank tellers with guns --HELL NO! Plus as of late Teller is seen as an offensive term-- I won't go into it. The worst thing that can possibly happen in a Bank Robbery is for someone to pull a gun on the Robber or the cops to get there before the robber does.

1. The Robberies are generally small and the money is insured.
2. Most Robbers are in and out.
3. Dye Packs
4. Cameras Everywhere.

One of my personal reasons would be Crossfire I set in the middle of the Lobby and I have the utmost respect for my CSR's but only one of them had ever even touched a gun. Sure I guess if I had been issued a weapon I could theoretically neutralized a threat from my position but if word gets around to Robbers that Bankers are packing they will start killing people during robberies that they see as threats. I don't want to be going over loan docs and get popped because Joey on Crack doesn't want to face my gun. I'd rather the guy come in Rob us for $600 and get caught in 2 days like they always do.

 

[Soybomb]

Banks around here provide NO security for their employees. What I don't understand is that this is akin to just putting the money out in the open.

Well out in the open with a big string attached to the FBI.

You're not asking to arm the bank guards, you're asking armed guards to be bankers. I'm not sure if thats practical.

Banks around here provide NO security for their employees.

It sounds like a decision for the workers and the customers.

 

[2RCO]

Also KY man for your 4 friends that are Managers and afraid to go to work I empathize. But in banking robberies are part of the gig. It's going to happen and it doesn't matter if your Urban or Rural same Jack-Monkey is going to try to get the money. I hate to say this but they need to toughen up or find a new line of work.

 

[IA_farmboy]

There's a saying I like to repeat when questions/comments like this come up...
"If you must ask why the answer is usually 'money'!"

I think the primary deterrent to arming the teller is training. Training that costs money. Training that is rare enough that the potential pool of employees would be such a relatively small portion of the populace that they bank would have to actually pay their employees more than a couple bucks above minimum wage.

There is also the fact that the weapons and ammunition costs money. Also those weapons need to be stored. Some banks are such little holes in the wall that they barely have room for the cash that they trade.

It is much easier to convince the local police to work there for free as security. It would be much cheaper to have more passive deterrents like video cameras and perhaps a single "guard" that is armed with little more than a cell phone, baton, and a booming voice.

While it may be nice to allow tellers to arm themselves if they wish I imagine there is a fear that the teller may bring the bank many woes if that weapon was ever pulled. One must also think that the bank fears the armed teller may be tempted to point the weapon at coworkers and take off with the bank's money.

 

[Warren]

Years back on a documentary of inventions that never made it one of the things was a mirror on both sides of the teller window, behind each mirror in a ball turret like deal was a full auto of some caliber. So when Mr. Bank Robber holds up the teller the two MG guys open up on the crook.

I can see why it did not make it, but still what a detterent.

 

[jobu07]

Some possible scenarios if tellers were armed:

1. Teller shoots bank robber. Robber's family gets a LAWYER to sue bank, teller, everyone else.

2. Teller draws, but robber shoots first, kills teller. Teller's family gets a LAWYER to sue bank, teller, everyone else.

3. Teller shoots innocent customer. Victim's family gets a LAWYER to sue bank, teller, everyone else.

4. Teller draws, robber shoots first, kills innocent customer. Victim's family gets a LAWYER to sue bank, teller, everyone else.

5. Insurance companies pay LAWYERS and ACTUARIES to determine risk, and consequences of risk. Historical payouts, etc. are used to determine possible cost of an action. Bank takes action based on projected costs.

How is it any different, really, than the risk you take as a lawful CCW?

I remember a number of years ago, my bank was having it's centenial anniversery and olde timey photos were posted all over their lobbies. Several of those photos showed the tellers, in 1901 posing all in a row with their shiny new revolvers in hand. It was my understanding that they were never robbed, or ever had a robbery attempt for that matter, during that period of their history. They were robbed twice in the 90's, however, while the tellars are unarmed.

 

[Ieyasu]

Although bank holdups are probably the form of robbery, after stagecoach holdups, most popularly associated with the frontier West, none of the several banks that operated in Aurora [Nevada] and Bodie [California] ever experienced a robbery attempt. Bankers went about armed, as did their employees, and robbers, like the highwaymen who avoided the guarded bullion stages, evidently were not willing to tangle with armed men.

From Roger D. McGrath, Violence and Lawlessness on the Western Frontier

 

[Ala Dan]

In Bessemer, Alabama

On May 14th of '07 the Wachovia branch located on U.S. 11 was robbed
by a lone gunman, and two bank employees were killed with another one
wounded seriously. The security camera wasn't working, and there were
NO security officers present. I don't understand why any bank would open
its doors for business, without a security detail on sight? Most banks work
with a contract security company, who pay only minimum wages; so just
maybe no one wanted to put their life in danger by signing up for work
with a security oufit~!

With proper training for bank employees (including teller's), maybe arming
them would be the answer?

 

[fletcher]

How is it any different, really, than the risk you take as a lawful CCW?

The only difference I see is that you, as an individual, are probably less of a money-grabbing target than a bank. More incentive for suits if the bank is involved.

 

[One of Many]

Why not use cages with bullet proof material, and electronic locks at each teller? The customer must enter the locking cage in order to reach the transaction drawer, and there is no way to shoot a gun at the teller or anyone else while inside the cage. The customer is protected from other customers while handling his money (no grab and run attacks), and no robber can threaten the teller with a gun. The cage has a ventilation system that prevents poison gasses from reaching the teller (and can also deliver knock-out gas to a robber). The transaction drawer has the means to detect bombs, chemicals etc.


This is a passive security system; any attempt to take money by threat of force results in the cage being locked, the knock-out gas being delivered into the cage, and the robber going to sleep until the cops arrive. No one gets injured in the process. Other customers are not affected, and business can continue normally in the rest of the bank.

 

[230RN]

This may be apocryphal, but some decades ago I heard of a gas station in Texas (this was before self-service stations became the rule) was victimized by robbers once or twice a month.

It just happened to be one of those "target-y" looking places near the intersection of two highways, so robbers were always tempted by it.

The owner of the gas station finally issued .45s and holsters to his service personnel, with instructions to open carry them after dusk when they went out to service the customers.

Robberies declined to zero forthwith.

The story continues that sometimes cars would come in, the drivers would see the sidearms, and they would then roar off onto one of the highways.

This would happen once or twice a month.

 

[ADKWOODSMAN]

Careful--armed tellers might hurt one of the felons and the defense lawyers will be out of a job!

 

[romma]

When somebody sticks a gun in your face, or threatens to, They deserve what they get! Arm the tellers that want to be armed, or at least allow them to be arm themselves and make up their own mind on what to do in a robbery.