Banks and other establishments have a "Do not challenge or confront the robber" policy for a very legitimate reason: liability.
If they do not explicit state that such actions are against company policy and can lead to dismissal, they can be held liable in the death or injury of any employee who responds to a threat in such a way.
Sorry - no big RTKABA conspiracy here. Just common business sense.
No, just cover your own ass legalese. That, and attorneys that come up with it, are part of the larger problem
I have an attorney friend who has a typical lawyer response, but one that might be worth considering: He wants to sue the banks with a “no guns” = easy target policy. First place to start is forward to me stories where banks with a “no guns” = easy target policy had robberies where people were hurt. I’ll pass them on to him. (Apparently he’s already done the research that he thinks shows that robbers look for these signs, and now he just needs clients.)
They’d be equally liable from a lawsuit by a surviving spouse because ‘bank policy’ forced their deceased husband or wife from being armed and able to defend themselves with equal force.