Were they worried that the cops would diligently investigate a triple homicide but would only send their B team in for an armored car heist?
There does seem to be some logic to not leaving witnesses to any crime.
And afterwards they didn't seem to have any compunction with killing people.
Were they nice criminals until the Waingro incident made them into hardened killers?
Being nice had nothing to do with it. They were professionals as well as businessmen, not psychotic, hate filled maniacs, which Waingro clearly was. Just because they were competent criminals, doesn’t mean that they enjoyed killing or harming people. Furthermore, homicides, especially senseless homicides, bring about a level of heat which individuals such as these actively avoid.
shareThey were not nice criminals, but they understood that if they killed someone things were going to escalate quickly and not only would they be looking at the death penalty but the cops would be very well motivated to find them. Once Waingro killed the first guy they were already looking at the maximum penalty so they’d might as well kill everyone else so there would be no witnesses. They had nothing to lose at that point.
shareSpot on. Hence why they were pissed at Waingro.
Mostly, I suspect, for making them marked men. Like you say, if it had been a robbery without any fatalities, the cops wouldn't be quite so intent on bringing them to justice. But, I also like to think that a few of them had consciences, and would have preferred *not* to take any lives (until Waingro forced their hand).
I'm not convinced about their motivations for killing the 2nd and 3rd guys.
I get the danger of witnesses increasing the chancesof bering caught ,
but they were wearing masks. ...
if they were caught NOT executing the other two might be the difference between life sentence or death panalty .. or something .
They'd have been better killing waingro on the spot and leaving him there as an apology : )
True but there would still be more details for the survivors to give the other cops and higher chances of getting caught. or at least more details for investogators to go on.
shareYeah , but dont forget that *was* plan "A" - 3 witnesses left alive to give details like , what color jumpsuits and which way they went or whatever . accents even .
so they must have felt pretty confident of getting away with it with living witnesses .
I see both sides . the murder ups the stakes so they have to make extra sure they get away ... but they were pretty sure anyway ....
I doubt a jury would be convinced that they weren't all culpable for the first guy. They're not going to hit that witness stand with, "Well, it was the new guy," as the defense.
Although, your final suggestion is an intriguing one... Very different movie, though. Would've had to have Nicolas Cage as MacCauly.
I see the logic in what they did from their perspectives. I mean, they're hardened criminals, I'm not; I don't "get" just killing people in any context. But, Hanna's explanation makes sense to me.
Just found a great line from , er , me , lol , in another thread on the same subject
"Basically they were executed as a precaution , not because they had to be."
kinda summs it up.
Yeah, basically. Once Waingro started killing, the others just went for it because the security guards were no longer "useful" alive in any way. It was inconvenient to leave them alive. Why leave any witness? Why take a chance that they do manage to pull a gun and get a few shots off? There is no reason, so just go for it.
So, yes, we definitely agree that they died for a slight convenience for MacCauly and his gang. It really shows how sociopathic those guys were/could be.
killing Waingro on the spot would actually have been a lot better for them, it turns out. Especially since it was his first job with them, they hadn't even met him until a few minutes earlier, so the cops finding his body wouldn't be a risk because he had no ties to their group.
Waingro knew far more than the poor security guards, and would therefore be a danger to them afterwards, as it later proved. Never mind by way of an apology, just in terms of being practical it would have been better to get him then. They must have been confident of being able to do away with him shortly after the job, but their attempt to do so failed, whereas it would have been a lot easier to shoot him when masked up and with explosions and gunshots already being heard anyway.
If they shot him on the van ride out of there, they could have torched his body with the vehicle, too.
shareWaingro was a psycho -- a thrill killer who got pleasure from killing people, as his murder of the prostitute later in the movie demonstrates. McCauley and his crew decided to kill him because they realize he killed a guard for no other reason than he got off on killing people. He thereby turned an armed robbery charge that would have gotten them locked up for a few years, into capital murder that could that would have gotten them locked up for life or even executed. And even though they got away, the fact that the crime was now a homicide instead of just a robbery where no one got hurt means the cops will be looking for them much harder. They weren't just mad at him, they were enraged at the psycho son of a bitch for putting them all in that much danger, which is why they attempted to kill him.
share‘Iridescent algae’
I think from a mere "getting caught" perspective, their chances of getting caught for mere armed robbery (considering how many pains they went through to cover their tracks) was about 5%. When Waingro killed the guard, and for clearly no reason, he upped their chances of getting caught to 50% since the police would now have access to a lot more resources to investigate them, plus their chances of a life sentence were near 100% if they were caught. By killing the rest of the guards, they maybe reduced their chances of getting caught to 30%.
What I think was dumb was how they handled kicking Waingro out of their group. It was clear De Niro was mad at him and wanted to kill him, and even DOES try to kill him when they went into the parking lot. This doesn't make a lot of sense though as De Niro did advocate paying him off just a few minutes earlier. If the plan was to kill Waingro all along, why be hostile with him in the diner? It would have made a lot more sense for De Niro to "play along" and welcome Waingro to the team, and then kill him later when Waingro had guard down. Either that or pay him off and let him take the full HEAT on his own, though that would have risked the group getting identified if Waingro was ever later captured or turned himself in and took a plea deal. So it would have made a lot more sense (and been a lot more professional) had De Niro just been patient and acted understanding, then just killed Waingro later.
It also doesn't really make sense as otherwise De Niro is a total professional throughout the movie aside from his ditching his escape attempt at the end to get his revenge on Waingro. I guess it is consistent, but at the same time not logical behavior. Does he just lose all professionalism and higher reasoning when it comes to his sheer hatred of and desire to kill Waingro? He really doesn't like people who bring unnecessary HEAT into his life...