5 ms·

However, the score is frequently minimal, where they just take what it is in the front cash registers. Random website [0] > The vast majority of bank robberies

However, the score is frequently minimal, where they just take what it is in the front cash registers. Random website [0] > The vast majority of bank robberies are relatively unsuccessful affairs, having netted criminals just $7,500 in 2010 on average, according to the FBI. [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/06/11/what-you-should-know-before-robbing-a-bank https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/06/11/what-you-sho...

corbezzoli 3y ago
Maybe you don’t get rich, but 7,500 tax-free dollars for a 2-minute job sound like a good deal, once you get the hang of it. Maybe I should switch careers…
- ZanyProgrammer 3y ago
  Assuming you don't get caught, which if you keep on bank robbing probably increases the odds you do.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  The risk isn’t worth it to most unless you are really desperate for a stay in the fed. At least you get fed and don’t sleep unsheltered.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Caught by a fed and thrown in the fed where at least you get fed.
- paulpauper 3y ago
  or be a politician. they seem to make a lot of $ for little work
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    They do work. Just not the work you want them to do.
- gosub100 3y ago
  bank robbery is automatically upgraded to the FBI and has (IIRC) a minimum sentence of 7 years, worse if you use a real weapon. I'm sure there are other ways to commit a petty offense or 2 that would net the same amount with less risk.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Robbery has an under 25% clearance rate, but bank robbery has an over 60% clearance rate—the median bank robber gets prison (yes, 80% of stolen funds aren’t recovered, but how much of a prison term js getting away with $7,500 worth?)
  - Arainach 3y ago
    Robbery is often committed by a single person. Bank robbery generally requires multiple, and often results in multiple charges per crime (which can skew clearance rates)
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      "You'll also likely have more people to split the money with" is further eroding the appeal of the $7,500 take.
  - codedokode 3y ago
    If bank robbery is less profitable than working for a minimum salary then why people do it?
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      Because as should be obvious to the most casual observer, assuming rationality combined with financially-return-focused utility functions produces a model of human behavior that bears basically no relationship to reality. (Which is more an answer to why the prior underlying your question is silly than it is an answer to the question, but...)
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      My brother is a detective. One of the early, surprising discoveries in career is that most criminals are dumb, fully driven by their Id. Basically, people driven by getting drugs or getting laid.
sigmoid10 3y ago
Seems like an amount the banks would have no problem sweeping under the rug. 7.5k should be a no-issue. A bank's existence is based on trust after all and if the public hears of this, the loss of trust will cost them a lot more in revenue than that puny amount. They might not even report it to insurance, because in the long run that could also end up costing them more due to increased premiums.
- kortilla 3y ago
  What? I don’t give a shit if my bank is robbed. FDIC insurance makes that a non-issue for the vast majority of the country.
  - wannacboatmovie 3y ago
    What a silly, immature statement. Sounds like the typical reaction I hear to organized retail theft and the rioting and destruction of property back in 2020: "They have insurance." As if the lack of consequences for perpetrators doesn't have consequences of its own. Insurance is not free money.
    - trelane 3y ago
      I am pretty sure they were responding to the "lack of trust" point raised by the parent, not the crime itself. Their point was that they aren't worried / don't lose trust in the bank if it gets robbed. Rather, the money is guaranteed, so they retain confidence in the bank even if it loses a lot of many due to a particularly successful robbery. Because they'll still get their deposit back. This is 100% what the FDIC and NCUA are about: ensuring continued consumer confidence in their banks.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Libcat99 3y ago
        That's not trust in the bank though, that's trust in the system/fdic. I think many would lose trust in their bank if they heard it was being robbed with abnormal regularity.
MrFoof 3y ago
Indeed, banks have a lot less money up front and on-site now. A lot of this is how much is done electronically nowadays compared to decades ago, but a lot of this was change in protocol after big hits in the 1990s became too commonplace. The Boston area was already particularly had hit during the 1990s, with multiple scores in the $120 - $500K range by just one gang, all laid out in the last paragraph: https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/state/1997/12/23/prosecutors-win-sweeping-victory-in/50584104007/ https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/state/1997/12/23/...

corbezzoli 3y ago

Maybe you don’t get rich, but 7,500 tax-free dollars for a 2-minute job sound like a good deal, once you get the hang of it. Maybe I should switch careers…

ZanyProgrammer 3y ago
Assuming you don't get caught, which if you keep on bank robbing probably increases the odds you do.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
The risk isn’t worth it to most unless you are really desperate for a stay in the fed. At least you get fed and don’t sleep unsheltered.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Caught by a fed and thrown in the fed where at least you get fed.
paulpauper 3y ago
or be a politician. they seem to make a lot of $ for little work
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  They do work. Just not the work you want them to do.
gosub100 3y ago
bank robbery is automatically upgraded to the FBI and has (IIRC) a minimum sentence of 7 years, worse if you use a real weapon. I'm sure there are other ways to commit a petty offense or 2 that would net the same amount with less risk.
dragonwriter 3y ago
Robbery has an under 25% clearance rate, but bank robbery has an over 60% clearance rate—the median bank robber gets prison (yes, 80% of stolen funds aren’t recovered, but how much of a prison term js getting away with $7,500 worth?)
- Arainach 3y ago
  Robbery is often committed by a single person. Bank robbery generally requires multiple, and often results in multiple charges per crime (which can skew clearance rates)
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    "You'll also likely have more people to split the money with" is further eroding the appeal of the $7,500 take.
- codedokode 3y ago
  If bank robbery is less profitable than working for a minimum salary then why people do it?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Because as should be obvious to the most casual observer, assuming rationality combined with financially-return-focused utility functions produces a model of human behavior that bears basically no relationship to reality. (Which is more an answer to why the prior underlying your question is silly than it is an answer to the question, but...)
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    My brother is a detective. One of the early, surprising discoveries in career is that most criminals are dumb, fully driven by their Id. Basically, people driven by getting drugs or getting laid.

sigmoid10 3y ago

Seems like an amount the banks would have no problem sweeping under the rug. 7.5k should be a no-issue. A bank's existence is based on trust after all and if the public hears of this, the loss of trust will cost them a lot more in revenue than that puny amount. They might not even report it to insurance, because in the long run that could also end up costing them more due to increased premiums.

kortilla 3y ago
What? I don’t give a shit if my bank is robbed. FDIC insurance makes that a non-issue for the vast majority of the country.
- wannacboatmovie 3y ago
  What a silly, immature statement. Sounds like the typical reaction I hear to organized retail theft and the rioting and destruction of property back in 2020: "They have insurance." As if the lack of consequences for perpetrators doesn't have consequences of its own. Insurance is not free money.
  - trelane 3y ago
    I am pretty sure they were responding to the "lack of trust" point raised by the parent, not the crime itself. Their point was that they aren't worried / don't lose trust in the bank if it gets robbed. Rather, the money is guaranteed, so they retain confidence in the bank even if it loses a lot of many due to a particularly successful robbery. Because they'll still get their deposit back. This is 100% what the FDIC and NCUA are about: ensuring continued consumer confidence in their banks.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Libcat99 3y ago
      That's not trust in the bank though, that's trust in the system/fdic. I think many would lose trust in their bank if they heard it was being robbed with abnormal regularity.

MrFoof 3y ago

Indeed, banks have a lot less money up front and on-site now. A lot of this is how much is done electronically nowadays compared to decades ago, but a lot of this was change in protocol after big hits in the 1990s became too commonplace. The Boston area was already particularly had hit during the 1990s, with multiple scores in the $120 - $500K range by just one gang, all laid out in the last paragraph: https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/state/1997/12/23/prosecutors-win-sweeping-victory-in/50584104007/ https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/state/1997/12/23/...