This is not a very responsible article. The young man in question violated the rules he knew had been set forth by his employer. He freely admitted that he did not do it out of bravely but because he got a rush from it. This behaviour endangered not just himself but other innocent people in the bank. Now if the robber had tried to assault a customer or the young man then he would have been justified in defending himself. But in this case he was not. Its only money after all and not something worth risking your life or someone else's life over. Banks have cameras and other types of security so the robber would have enventually been caught. Its certainly not a situation where indvidual initiative was violated. Someone risking their life over money is an example of recklessness and stupidity. Now if he had found out a fellow employee was stealing money and turned him in that would be a good example of individual inititive.

I agree with your views, however, it is CANADA GEESE, not CANADIAN GEESE!!!! This innacuracy caused me to wonder whether there were inaccuracies in some of the other "facts" in your piece.

Having worked in banking for 20 years, I agree with the bank's actions, the teller was properly dismissed. He's also lucky that the robber left the bank without harm to himself or others. Banks once had armed guards, but, at least where I worked, the guards proved more of a danger than the robbers (having accidentally shot a customer during a robbery)and were eliminated, and the bank depended on silent alarms, surveillance cameras and exploding bait money instead. However, I do agree that there should be a more proactive approach to dealing with theft. Insured or not, criminals should be pursued and prosecuted.