“I am the Robin Hood bank robber. “Am I proud of what I did? “God damn right I am.”

A CONVICTED bank robber recently released from a US prison and deported to Australia has boasted about a heist he pulled off in which he “humiliated those who hate the poor”.
Author Corey Donaldson, from Macclesfield, Victoria — who describes himself as “the Robin Hood bank robber” — has returned home after serving a five-and-a-half-year prison sentence in the US.
In his first Australian interview since his July deportation, Donaldson, 45, told news.com.au he was “God damn proud of what (he) did” in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on December 31, 2012.
As revellers all over the globe prepared to ring in the New Year, Donaldson disguised himself in sunglasses and a cap, then walked into a bank to carry out a “lone wolf style” heist in the ski resort town.
He feigned a South African accent during the holdup in which he told staff that Mexican drug gang cartel members had placed bombs in the snow outside and would blow up the bank and then hunt down and kill the manager if $US2 million was not handed over.


The manager — who later needed psychiatric treatment — emptied out the bank’s safe and teller drawers and Donaldson walked away with $US140,000 cash. According to Donaldson, the heist lasted an extraordinary 90 minutes.
“I was in full view of all the moneychangers, without a single alarm being triggered,” Donaldson said.
“Staff did not know what happened until I was gone.


“I secured $140,750 without touching any of it, got away slower than grandma, and stayed away, donating the cash to the needy across three states.”
He spent the next 22 days on the run until his arrest in Clinton, Utah on January 22, 2013.
According to Donaldson, he didn’t rob the bank out of greed, or to fund a lavish lifestyle. He claimed the heist “was about confiscating corrupt system cash and giving that cash to the poor”.
“I gave it all away, and then some,” he told news.com.au.
“I approached homeless people on the street and asked them how much money they needed to change their lives. I gave them what they asked for, and more.
“I also gave to organisations like the Salvo’s and Volunteers of America.
“The typical response I received were hugs, shock, tears and gratitude. People were peeled off ice-laden streets into warm beds because of what I did.”

MORE at https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/australian-criminal-returns-from-us-i-am-the-robin-hood-bank-robber/news-story/f081db9fc71b165a92d1ce1fcb4a14ff

Raggamuffin wrote:What a ridiculous man - no shame for what he put the staff through.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What a ridiculous man - no shame for what he put the staff through.

“Staff did not know what happened until I was gone."  

The manager — who later needed psychiatric treatment — emptied out the bank’s safe and teller drawers and Donaldson walked away with $US140,000 cash. According to Donaldson, the heist lasted an extraordinary 90 minutes.

Original Quill wrote:Um...not to diminish his generosity and admirable sense of charity, but an American wouldn't know a South African accent from an Australian accent, anytime, anywhere.  Waste of time.  To an American, they both sound vaguely British, with crisper consonants and deeper vowel sounds.  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

“Staff did not know what happened until I was gone."  

The manager — who later needed psychiatric treatment — emptied out the bank’s safe and teller drawers and Donaldson walked away with $US140,000 cash. According to Donaldson, the heist lasted an extraordinary 90 minutes.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The manager needed "psychiatric" treatment, not psychological counseling.  Huge difference.  A psychologist treats the effects of trauma on the normal mind.  A psychiatrist treats abnormalities, or mental illness.

The fact that the manager sought psychiatric treatment means he probably had a preexisting mental condition...at most, a latent mental illness might have been triggered by the event, or not.

He feigned a South African accent during the holdup in which he told staff that Mexican drug gang cartel members had placed bombs in the snow outside and would blow up the bank and then hunt down and kill the manager if $US2 million was not handed over.

Raggamuffin wrote:You don't think that being told there were bombs outside and that you'll be killed if you don't hand over the dosh might give someone mental issues?

Raggamuffin wrote:It's amazing the kind of person you admire really - you always seem to side with criminals rather than their victims.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You don't think that being told there were bombs outside and that you'll be killed if you don't hand over the dosh might give someone mental issues?

Emotional issues, yes, but not mental illness.  A mental illness is an abnormality, often due to chemical or physical irregularities...or long-term environmental factors.  If he had acquired emotional issues, he would have consulted with a psychologist.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's amazing the kind of person you admire really - you always seem to side with criminals rather than their victims.

Where did I say I admired him?  The story more-or-less lauds him for being a kind of "Robin Hood".  Just because I go along with that premise doesn't mean that, were I writing the story, I would have made him out to be a hero.

Keep in mind, my comment had to do with American understanding of accents, not judgments about the subject's behavior.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Emotional issues, yes, but not mental illness.  A mental illness is an abnormality, often due to chemical or physical irregularities...or long-term environmental factors.  If he had acquired emotional issues, he would have consulted with a psychologist.



Where did I say I admired him?  The story more-or-less lauds him for being a kind of "Robin Hood".  Just because I go along with that premise doesn't mean that, were I writing the story, I would have made him out to be a hero.

Keep in mind, my comment had to do with American understanding of accents, not judgments about the subject's behavior.

A psychiatrist deals with issues like PTSD and anxiety, so clearly there wasn't necessarily a mental illness prior to the incident.

Raggamuffin wrote:You are admiring the guy - the way you're downplaying how it affected the staff tells me that.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A psychiatrist deals with issues like PTSD and anxiety, so clearly there wasn't necessarily a mental illness prior to the incident.

I said, a strong enough environmental disruption might contribute to mental illness.  I doubt a bank robbery would trigger anything like that.  I have dealt with PTSD and experts in trials, and to trigger a mental illness would take much more.  More likely, this guy had prior problems.

Raggamuffin wrote:You are admiring the guy - the way you're downplaying how it affected the staff tells me that.

Or the facts might play into it...heaven forbid!  The article said the 'staff' didn't even know the robbery was taking place.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I said, a strong enough environmental disruption might contribute to mental illness.  I doubt a bank robbery would trigger anything like that.  I have dealt with PTSD and experts in trials, and to trigger a mental illness would take much more.  More likely, this guy had prior problems.



Or the facts might play into it...heaven forbid!  The article said the 'staff' didn't even know the robbery was taking place.

No, he claimed the staff didn't know. Clearly, the manager knew. Stop being a dick Quill - insisting that the manager must have had a prior mental illness just makes you sound like you're blaming him for minding being threatened by a thief.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, he claimed the staff didn't know. Clearly, the manager knew. Stop being a dick Quill - insisting that the manager must have had a prior mental illness just makes you sound like you're blaming him for minding being threatened by a thief.

No, you stop being a cunt, Raggs.  Yes, the manager knew.  But you said my attitude was indicated by my approach to the staff.  I offered no disparagement of the staff...they were not even in the picture.

As far as the manager's mental condition, you brought it up.  My position is, judging by the kind of treatment he was receiving, it appears it had nothing to do with the incident.

Syl wrote:Quill is certainly making the most of the lapsed word filter. 

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, you stop being a cunt, Raggs.  Yes, the manager knew.  But you said my attitude was indicated by my approach to the staff.  I offered no disparagement of the staff...they were not even in the picture.

As far as the manager's mental condition, you brought it up.  My position is, judging by the kind of treatment he was receiving, it appears it had nothing to do with the incident.

You have no idea what treatment he was receiving. You just made assumptions based on the fact he was seeing a psychiatrist. You are doing everything you can to excuse this low life who stole other people's money and threatened bank staff.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Quill is certainly making the most of the lapsed word filter. 

I'm delighted that they removed 'cunt' from the filtration mechanism.  First, it's a wonderfully expressive British-use word.  Second, I never liked the southern Baptist influence, anyway.  It was just a bunch of 'stick-up-er-ass' types who imposed the censorship in the first place.

Besides, 'cunt' is a legitimate French word.  It derives from the Latin, cunus...the legitimate word for vulva, or whatever those wee pink bits are called.  We should be respectful of the classics.

Syl wrote:He is a self congratulating idiot.

nicko wrote:He's still a thief !

veya_victaous wrote:

nicko wrote:He's still a thief !

But he has served his time

Unlike the thieving banks    

veya_victaous wrote:Because I don't believe counter to your points you just said i did ... a.k.a strawman

I never said he was right or good

just he has served his time, therefore under the law paid for the suffering he caused in lost freedom

Banks (keeping in mind a royal commission has just revealed massive coordinated illegal activities by the banks in Australia equating to Billions of Dollars in stolen and defrauded funds from customers) tend to get away with without paying for the suffering they caused under the law, even when the laws say they should.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Because I don't believe counter to your points you just said i did ... a.k.a strawman

I never said he was right or good

just he has served his time, therefore under the law paid for the suffering he caused in lost freedom

Banks (keeping in mind a royal commission has just revealed massive coordinated illegal activities by the banks in Australia equating to Billions of Dollars in stolen and defrauded funds from customers) tend to get away with without paying for the suffering they caused under the law, even when the laws say they should.

Explain the claim to strawman?

Because we both know that is a complete copout and misdirection by you

I never said he should be discriminated against because he committed a crime

He paid his due and happy to accept that, never claimed otherwise

Not my argument and hence you are moving the goal posts

And again we know Banks do many things wrong

Hence, doing more wrongs, does not make a right, when you do as they do

Steal

You just continue the cycle of wrong

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Explain the claim to strawman?

Because we both know that is a complete copout and misdirection by you

I never said he should be discriminated against because he committed a crime

He paid his due and happy to accept that, never claimed otherwise

Not my argument and hence you are moving the goal posts

And again we know Banks do many things wrong

Hence, doing more wrongs, does not make a right, when you do as they do

Steal

You just continue the cycle of wrong

WTF????

Didge wrote:That crime is okay and that people suffer?

Didge wrote:I am going to enjoy this.....

veya_victaous wrote:No one has said the crime is Ok 
No one has suggest it was wrong that he went to prison and was then deported for it

DO you not even realize when you are strawmanning people anymore ?

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

nicko wrote:He's still a thief !

But he has served his time

Unlike the thieving banks    

Warped philosophy
This man effected families by stealing, no matter how he then gave his money to others. As many people place their money within banks. It has a knock on effect. As well as to the people effected by the heist. Wow what does that to do with any of the ten words above if anything those 10 words communicate agreement with Nickos point that he is a Thief

You dont steal from others to help the poor, as you defeat the very object you set out to do, in helping them. nothing in those ten words references poor or helping or an objective

If stealing is thus cast as righteous, then you fall foul to the very same thing you claim the bankers are guilty of. Wow what does that to do with any of the ten words above if anything those 10 words communicate agreement with Nickos point that he is a Thief

Stealing

You thus negate the very thing you claim to stand against and become one of them

Hence, it serves no purpose

What you actually do is rather embarress banks, by their greed and how they do little to help those in need.

By stealing, you just play the same irrational wrong done to people, as someone will always suffer. 

Thus, when people end up suffering, then it can never be good what is done
 yeah all of the above is another repeat of
"Wow what does that to do with any of the ten words above if anything those 10 words communicate agreement with Nickos point that he is a Thief"

veya_victaous wrote:Because I don't believe counter to your points you just said i did ... a.k.a strawman

I never said he was right or good

just he has served his time, therefore under the law paid for the suffering he caused in lost freedom

Banks (keeping in mind a royal commission has just revealed massive coordinated illegal activities by the banks in Australia equating to Billions of Dollars in stolen and defrauded funds from customers) tend to get away with without paying for the suffering they caused under the law, even when the laws say they should.

veya_victaous wrote:Wow what does that to do with any of the ten words above if anything those 10 words communicate agreement with Nickos point that he is a Thief

nothing in those ten words references poor or helping or an objective

Wow what does that to do with any of the ten words above if anything those 10 words communicate agreement with Nickos point that he is a Thief

yeah all of the above is another repeat of

"Wow what does that to do with any of the ten words above if anything those 10 words communicate agreement with Nickos point that he is a Thief"

Didge wrote:Is that why Disney is make belief?

And how you could not counter my points mate?

Also the fact that "Robin Hood" is an actual myth?

Even if it was real, people will always end up suffering, based on his exploits

So, I am not sure how you think you can make a right, by making others suffer.

Maybe you can explain why, when this is the very thing, you think is wrong. That it is wrong that people suffer?

veya_victaous wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Because I don't believe counter to your points you just said i did ... a.k.a strawman

I never said he was right or good

just he has served his time, therefore under the law paid for the suffering he caused in lost freedom

Banks (keeping in mind a royal commission has just revealed massive coordinated illegal activities by the banks in Australia equating to Billions of Dollars in stolen and defrauded funds from customers) tend to get away with without paying for the suffering they caused under the law, even when the laws say they should.

I never said I disagreed  
That's the point, that's why it a Strawman
You just Said I disagreed when I never expressed an opinion on the morality or purpose of his actions

I would take the claims with a grain of salt, he got a lot less than he wanted. who knows what the original plan was

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:Is that why Disney is make belief?

And how you could not counter my points mate?

Also the fact that "Robin Hood" is an actual myth?

Even if it was real, people will always end up suffering, based on his exploits

So, I am not sure how you think you can make a right, by making others suffer.

Maybe you can explain why, when this is the very thing, you think is wrong. That it is wrong that people suffer?

Also THIS I don't think this at all!

There is always suffering, suffering is life. it's not wrong, it just is, we can and should try to minimize the amount we cause, but now we are getting into Zen Philosophies which are rather off topic

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Wow what does that to do with any of the ten words above if anything those 10 words communicate agreement with Nickos point that he is a Thief

nothing in those ten words references poor or helping or an objective

Wow what does that to do with any of the ten words above if anything those 10 words communicate agreement with Nickos point that he is a Thief

yeah all of the above is another repeat of

"Wow what does that to do with any of the ten words above if anything those 10 words communicate agreement with Nickos point that he is a Thief"

1) He is a theif, that is a fact

2) False argument. As you seem to be suggesting that the poor is the subject of this. As how is robbing rich people and then making them poor. Anyway a good thing?

You just repeat the same cycle of greed

3) You just repeated yourself

4) Can you not construct an actual rational answer?

5) If you think robbing the rich to help the poor. Then you do realise that you are advocating the plunder of India, by the British?

As that is the reality of the situation. India, under their rich rulers, were conquered and this plunder was then used to kick start the inductrial revolution? Which then helped the poor in Britain become better off. Not that much better, but by your standards. The British conquest of India, being as they took the wealth off the rich rulers in India. Must have been a 18-19th century Robin Hood?

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:

1) He is a theif, that is a fact

2) False argument. As you seem to be suggesting that the poor is the subject of this. As how is robbing rich people and then making them poor. Anyway a good thing?

You just repeat the same cycle of greed

3) You just repeated yourself

4) Can you not construct an actual rational answer?

5) If you think robbing the rich to help the poor. Then you do realise that you are advocating the plunder of India, by the British?

As that is the reality of the situation. India, under their rich rulers, were conquered and this plunder was then used to kick start the inductrial revolution? Which then helped the poor in Britain become better off. Not that much better, but by your standards. The British conquest of India, being as they took the wealth off the rich rulers in India. Must have been a 18-19th century Robin Hood?

You are insane  

And surely the fairer thing would be for the wealth of india to be spread among the people that live in india  
The British poor should have over thrown their own Royals

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:Is that why Disney is make belief?

And how you could not counter my points mate?

Also the fact that "Robin Hood" is an actual myth?

Even if it was real, people will always end up suffering, based on his exploits

So, I am not sure how you think you can make a right, by making others suffer.

Maybe you can explain why, when this is the very thing, you think is wrong. That it is wrong that people suffer?

Also THIS I don't think this at all!

There is always suffering, suffering is life. it's not wrong, it just is, we can and should try to minimize the amount we cause, but now we are getting into Zen Philosophies which are rather off topic

So you have said suffereing is life

So then, if its life, then you have no issue with bankers then?

Thank you

You just defeated your own argument

I mean you said suffering is a part of life

You have no idea of philosophy and i will wrap you around in courners all day long mate...

Which I think you are now arguing against

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you have said suffereing is life

So then, if its life, then you have no issue with bankers then?

Thank you

You just defeated your own argument

I mean you said suffering is a part of life

You have no idea of philosophy and i will wrap you around in courners all day long mate...

Death and taxes
Under the corrupt Corpocracy bank fees may as well be taxes

But Still if they break the law (and they have) they should pay the penalty for their crimes, Like the self claimed robin hood in the OP 

Which I think you are now arguing against


Since my Simple point expressed in 10 words was that the Banks Should 'serve their time' or whatever penalty is appropriate.

veya_victaous wrote:
Because I don't believe counter to your points you just said i did ... a.k.a strawman

I never said he was right or good

just he has served his time, therefore under the law paid for the suffering he caused in lost freedom

Banks (keeping in mind a royal commission has just revealed massive coordinated illegal activities by the banks in Australia equating to Billions of Dollars in stolen and defrauded funds from customers) tend to get away with without paying for the suffering they caused under the law, even when the laws say they should.

veya_victaous wrote:I love how you can make up all that rubbish from 10 words


P.S. Disney Disagrees 

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:
Because I don't believe counter to your points you just said i did ... a.k.a strawman

I never said he was right or good

just he has served his time, therefore under the law paid for the suffering he caused in lost freedom

Banks (keeping in mind a royal commission has just revealed massive coordinated illegal activities by the banks in Australia equating to Billions of Dollars in stolen and defrauded funds from customers) tend to get away with without paying for the suffering they caused under the law, even when the laws say they should.

Poor ol' Dodger must be feeling somewhat lonely and neglected, as the weekend looms...

Over the last day or so, he been falling back onto one of his favourite tricks on here --  creating arguments with you, and Quill, across multiple threads, where no actual arguments had existed..

"Argument for argument's sake"..

Lord Foul wrote:Strikes me the thief is STILL trying to justify his crime,despite having been processed for it and garner sympathy.......poor little me syndrome.
Whilst an attractive idea, the robin hood approach is not tenable or desireable..... it appeals mainly to the jealous lefty instinct to rob anyone who has anything they dont and reduce all (except of course themselves) to the lowest common denominator.....

IF you have any sympathy for this criminal then presumably you would support the guy who steals a yacht from its berth and sells it .
And
If you support THAT then presumably you are ok with stealing your neighbours car because it is a better modle than yours or a year or two newer....