Quoted:
Bank robbers know the corporate policies well and they rely on the tellers following them. Most of the robbers don't bother bringing a weapon
To play the part of the Devil's Advocate, we all know there are unintended consequences to many decisions. The decision to disallow defiance may have led to more robbery attempts, however as noted above, it has also led to less dangerous robberies. If the company policy was to allow employees to resist robbers, there is a higher likelihood that robbers would bring weapons and put more people in danger.
Since we know there have been bank robbers as long as there have been banks, we can say that allowing resistance will not stop violent robberies.
What is worse: a customer or teller getting shot and the robber caught using the CCTV footage, or one flustered teller, no bothered customers, with the robber caught using the CCTV footage?
If the robbers do not use weapons, it is still better for the robbed teller... I think most people would be very upset if they found themselves staring down the barrel of a gun during the course of their shift, Being as that's what the robbers will need to do in order to make sure the teller will not resist, in absence of this sort of policy.
While I do think it is an injustice that the teller was fired, the policy is designed to make these events safer for everyone involved. Increasing the consequences for a given crime filters out the least dangerous criminal element... but that filter ensures the more dangerous criminals will be the ones committing the given crimes.
I think the worst thing about promoting resistance in these situations is that the robber that would not have otherwise used violence to commit the robbery may now be more willing to use immediate violence to create the initial intimidation to maintain control, rather the corporate policy over the teller to keep things calm and quiet during the robbery.
In the end, I am glad the robber was caught. I am saddened the guy lost his job. But I am concerned his actions, while possibly deterring the least violent bank robbers, may have emboldened the violence-prone, or created the catalyst that will cause a future bank robber to use violence as the primary method of crowd control, initially, rather than as a plan B.
~Icarus