It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI wants bank ban on hats, sunglasses

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:53 AM
link   
This is a very strange law. What would happen to someone who walked into a bank with sunglasses and a hat on? Would the teller ask them to take it off? Robbers would refuse and hold the teller up anyway, so what's the point of passing such a law unless they have security guards outside the bank monitoring what people are wearing before they enter?

This topic also reminds me of a video I watched on youtube:





posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   
What are the banks to do with people wearing photo gray lenses????
Cuff'em , stuff'em and haul'em down town.

Roper



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Wearing sunglasses whilst speaking to someone is the height of rudeness anyway. No polite, respectful person would do it. So what's the problem?



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   
They could be getting prepared in case of an economic collapse. If the collapse does happen, then you will see a spike in crimes such as violence, theft and robbery. They might be taking a precaution in case anything does happen.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
This move for legislation can't be in order to serve the surveillance industry because they have no agenda, and love and trust all Americans, including Muslims with beards an sunglasses and hats. They also know that real crimes get caught from the evidence of motives and relationships, not that people randomly commit crimes, and they know Islam is for peace, and often convert with no trouble.

But the government is daddy and mummy. They only watch for our own good anyway, (until we leave home).

Why this emphasis on banks? Robbing banks is a game, a petty crime, I'm sure they don't want to use their shooters: that's only if the bank staff don't cooperate. They have to carry some threat , or noone would play the game, and then there wouldn't be any bank robbers, and we wouldn't be able to watch bankrobbing movies.
Yes, you see, he's right, the man who pointed out that the list of hold up venues in public is endless, that is in any commercial area. But then there's the non-commercial areas, like parks, where people might get mugged, or merely expose themselves , wearing a raincoat -which is pretty traumatic for some.

I think the question of large-person-disguise must be addressed, nakedness seems a good way to go, in public. Especially because that's illegal too, and then we can all live and work in prison (naked). BUt even then, there's plastic surgery or 'naked fat man disguise' Best that fat people can't go naked, best they're rounded up and forced to lose weight immediately. Those who refuse are guilty, caught in the act of planning a terrorist plot: the evidence is indisputable, who wants to be fat? But what about jolly fat people,? Easy, give them all a personality test, and round up unhappy fat people. No, that doesn't solve the problem of disguise, I'm losing myself. In any case fat people might pretend to be happy.

All dress codes, and even shapes, present problems: you can be scared of people in fancy dress, true. SO fear rules and ban fancy dress in public, I say. Then there are insider trading and bank jobs, people stealing nuclear weapons in military uniform. Best to ban all fancy dress everywhere: that the military should be naked too, although workboots for digging ditches might be OK. Thin people are unsettled, and nervous about something. I bet most suicide bombers are thin before they strap stuff on.

It's not a question of erosion of liberties, you see. That kind of argument is illogical, when we can suspect everyone and not be content to live in a world where there is some petty crime, and let the cops catch them the old fashioned way. As Americans, one should have a right to be scared, and live for ever, knowing that the government will catch everyone BEFORE they commit a crime.





[edit on 16-9-2007 by bolly]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
When is the last time you read about someone trying to hold up a drrive up window?


Check this out:

robber robs bank drive up window.



[edit on 2007/9/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
If that was to be passed, it would cause the like at other places who get robbed. This won't stop robbers. If they want to rob the place they are going to do it anyway. Wouldn't that shy customers away because being caught wearing such items by accident would be embarrassing, you may even get arrested? Rules are becoming so rampant that we'll all just want to stay indoors in the future. Just another way of taking our "freedom".



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Check this out:

robber robs bank drive up window.


I realize many have tried Grady my point was most fail when going to the drive up windows.

Check the links you found on google


One police officer at the scene said the robber walked up to the drive-up window on the southern side of the bank and made some kind of contact with bank officials, but later went in a door on the north side of the bank and robbed it.
Source

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


or

Woman admits trying to rob a bank teller at a drive-up window

note it says trying

Most of the others all say or imply failed attempts or show where they were captured because they were dumb enough to even try it at a window.

Not that no one has ever managed to rob one mind you, I am sure a few have. I am just pointing out only a fool would try and rob a drive up simply because the teller is behind bullet proof glass



[edit on 9/16/2007 by shots]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
In the UK it is now illegal to have darkened windows on your car beyond a certain defree of tint.

It's also becoming increasingly common for people to be asked to remove their baseball caps or hoodie before entering premises.

The culture of mass surveillance is well established here and increasing by the day.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Doesn't pretty much every public place have a sign somewhere that says something like "Management reserves the right to request anybody leave the premises..." Along with the seal of the local law enforcement and their phone number? Almost everywhere I've been does.

So ask the person to remove their sunglasses/hat and if they fail to comply ask them to leave, if they don't leave they're trespassing and subject to arrest. No need to place a law that would be haphazardly enforced - reminds me of the old "No shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs, or the restaurants that require you wear a jacket. Except this rule actually has a public safety component (well I guess the no shirt/shoes does too, but in a different capacity.)



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 


LMAO!! That's the funniest thing I've seen since the Killer Giant Bush on the Civil war ufo thread!!

Thanks for that!

/off topic

on topic:

At the entrance to any business sensitive to possible armed robbery, the following statement, or something like it, should be placed:

"For the safety of our staff and patrons, the management respectfully requests that you remove your hat and sunglasses before entering."

It should be quite clear that's all that should be required under these circumstances.

A private business reserves the right to deny entry to anyone who does not comply with their code of conduct.

It's all in the same vein as "No shoes, No shirt, No service."

You can't enter a nudist colony with your clothes on (unless the management allows you to do so,) and the banks do not have to let you enter if you will not comply with a simple, non-invasive request.

But neither situation requires a law in place to enforce these simple rules of conduct, IMHO.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
This is a very strange law. What would happen to someone who walked into a bank with sunglasses and a hat on? Would the teller ask them to take it off? Robbers would refuse and hold the teller up anyway, so what's the point of passing such a law unless they have security guards outside the bank monitoring what people are wearing before they enter?

This topic also reminds me of a video I watched on youtube:


You'd be surprised at how many would be robbers lose their nerve as soon as they are confronted. In fact, this tactic is so useful, that tellers are now being trained to treat would-be robbers as if they were valued customers and to focus all on them. They get very nervous and wonder if they are just stalling them waiting for the cops. If they got anything to hide(like a Gun) then they'll bolt. It can be nerve racking for the teller, but I know one person who foiled two robbery attempts this way. Psychology is a wonderful thing.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   
ban hats! lol thats about as stupid as banning anything cause it cant be enforced!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join