It looks like the boss of the Seattle FBI's bank robbery squad has flipped his lid.
Special Agent David Carr is working with Washington state legislators to develop laws that would mandate removal of headwear (and, we assume large sunglasses, Groucho Marx stick on moustaches and similar accoutrements) before approaching a teller in a bank in the "Evergreen State" as part of a comprehensive anti-bank robbery program.
Huh?
I quote from the Seattle Times newspaper:
Carr, who heads the FBI's bank-robbery division in Seattle, said that most bank robbers cover their heads "with a hat, sunglasses or a hoodie [hooded sweat shirt]" to avoid being identified by surveillance photos..."Even if you zoom in, all you're getting is the tighter picture of a baseball cap," Carr said. "Banks can spend billions of dollars on surveillance systems and it's meaningless."
Can you top that? Bank robbers wearing disguises? What'll they think of next? Demand notes with letters cut from newspapers? Grocery bags for loot?
I am glad that the cream of American law enforcement has finally 1) identified this trend of criminals wearing disguises; and 2) decided to pass another law.
But before we tip our hats to Special Agent Carr, let's ask raise some touchy questions that might go to the root of the issue:
What about people like rabbis, Sikhs and the Pope? Can they wear hats? I mean, most of the aforementioned are generally law abiding fellows (okay, let's not leave out gals, I'm like Salvation Army Sallies or the Sisters of Charity) who are somewhat resistant about removing headgear? What about postmen or firefighters who have hats as part of their uniforms? What about those of us overly touchy guts with thinning pate? I mean, if I have a ball cap with a wheelchair logo does that qualify me for an Americans with Disabilities Act exemption to hide the bald spot in a bank? Or does this mean that if I run short of spray-on-hair to cover the bald spot that risk being gunned down by a team of Tommy-gun-toting G-Men (didn't J. Edgar Hoover require federal fedoras in public -- while preferring floral at home?). Might vanity lead me to become a posthumous spokesman for "Hair Club For Men"?
I was under the impression that after Sept. 11, 2001 the FBI was to be redeployed to take on the biggest danger facing the nation: terrorism. I am fully aware that many terrorists are known hat wearers, Osama Bin Laden is always pictured in a head scarf (although the current version might be less slightly smaller if there is truth to intelligence claims that the Big Guy has is doing the Grecian gray gambit in his cave).
My recollection is that Che Guevara wore a beret, Fidel still sports a softy and the biggest commie of all time, Mao, sported military cap with a star.
Don't forget though that two of the scariest scourges of the past century -- Mad Bomber George Metesky and Son of Sam David Berkowitz Kaczynski evaded capture for years by going hatless.
(N.B. Bin-Laden is the only one of the FBI's Most Wanted shown wearing a hat. To give the FBI their due, only two of the folks on the most wanted bank robbers lists are bareheaded, so maybe they've got something there).
Enough head scratching; let's be serious.
The country is at war. Every top law enforcement official -- white hat, black hat, Stetson and beret -- agree that our nation will soon be hit with another terrorist attack.
We've got a topless Justice Department (Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez is still at his going away party reciting sex stories like Jimmy Cagney on the USS Reluctant ranting to Mister Roberts about strawberries). We can't control our borders; the ports are unguarded in all but name and we continue to lack a comprehensive program that might identify the whereabouts of dangerous chemicals and toxic substances that a junior high kid could turn into a mega-bomb faster than you could say "My Space" in Arabic.
Bank robbery was a serious national problem when John Dillinger was front page news. The obvious and successful solution to bank robber was to harden the target. The problem all but vanished when banks started shielding their assets behind bullet proof material (the same thing happened with taxi robberies in New York when cabs were equipped with anti-ballistic dividers). It's not hats that are causing a rise in bank robberies; it's the "consumer friendly" strategy of removing bullet proof glass and making the teller's drawers as accessible as piglets at a petting zoo.
It is already against the law to carry a gun into a bank. Does anyone believe there is deterrent value in creating a compound felony of felonious gun toting while wearing a hat?
The FBI gained jurisdiction over bank robbery during the days when Ma and Pa Barker crossed state lines and Baby Face Nelson was better known than 50 Cent.
Enough already. Gunsels have been overtaken by Britney's bits and Paris' prison. It's time to get our law enforcement strategy in order.
I have the highest respect for the FBI and know that many agents are bona fide national heroes. But if anyone in the FBI has enough spare head scratching time to concoct such hare-brained schemes as outlawing hats in banks, it's time to put on our thinking caps.
Off the top of my head, I'd say it's time to send the FBI back to their appropriate job and pass the bank robbery hat back to the local cops.
