In principle I agree with you. I really do. However I used to work for a large bank with a huge retail presence here in the Midwest (LaSalle Bank, taken over by Bank of America) and it was also our bank's policy that the Teller's would comply with demands for cash from bank robbers as a means to keep the Teller's themselves safe.
The logic behind it was that any bank teller that was injured (or worse, killed) by refusing to comply with a robbers demands means the bank is liable for the death of that employee.
How so you may ask? Because when the lawsuits start being filed, who gets sued? The would-be bank robber, or the bank itself?
The bank of course, that's who has the bigger pockets.
I agree with you the guy's a hero and that he stopped future crimes from happening. I'm just telling you what the bank's views on these types of actions are and why they don't want employees arguing/fighting with/pursuing robbers themselves. (Don't shoot the messenger on this one.)
How so you may ask? Because when the lawsuits start being filed, who gets sued? The would-be bank robber, or the bank itself?
Not necessarily true. A friend's wife was murdered in 2001 by a guest who called her to his room as she worked as a night clerk at a chain hotel. He tried numerous attorneys, but was told every time that there was nothing he could sue for.