Some criminal schemes are complicated enough to keep detectives guessing for months.

Then there is the Arizona Shake Shack employee accused of robbing his own workplace and casually returning two days later, apparently expecting the regular schedule to continue.

Authorities say Keondre Simmons, 33, decided his normal paycheck was not enough.

Prosecutors allege he entered the Shake Shack where he worked and attempted to "give himself a raise," through a method that was neither legal nor especially clever.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

The robbery reportedly unfolded Monday, August 3, at the Shake Shack near Scottsdale and Greenway Road.

Simmons allegedly entered through a rear door while carrying a semiautomatic handgun, giving him access to coworkers who presumably recognized him.

According to prosecutors, Simmons forced one coworker into a walk in cooler at gunpoint.

He then allegedly ordered the manager to open the restaurant safe and surrender approximately $2,800 in cash.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

Authorities say Simmons locked the employees inside the cooler before leaving.

He is also accused of taking and destroying their cellphones, then destroying the restaurant landline in what appears to have been a truly inspired effort to make telephones themselves responsible for police work.

Smashing the phones might have delayed an emergency call, but it did not erase witnesses, workplace records, schedules, security evidence, or the awkward fact that the alleged robber worked there.

Details like those tend to complicate even the finest criminal "master plans."

Perhaps Simmons should have spent some time watching "The First 48," or "Forensic Files," before allegedly launching his grand operation.

Even casual viewers understand that robbing the place where everyone knows your face creates certain investigative challenges.

The most remarkable decision, however, came after the alleged robbery.

Simmons reportedly returned to the same Shake Shack just two days later, as though stealing thousands of dollars at gunpoint was merely an inconvenient shift dispute.

Police arrested Simmons on Wednesday, August 5, in the restaurant parking lot.

Yes, the accused robber allegedly came back to the exact location where authorities say he had threatened two coworkers, locked them in a cooler, destroyed communications equipment, and fled with cash.

WATCH:

One can only imagine the confidence required to stroll back into that environment.

Either Simmons believed investigators had abandoned the case, or he assumed destroying several phones had somehow caused law enforcement to vanish from the face of Arizona.

Officials said Simmons was unhappy about being taken into custody, which is hardly surprising.

Criminal suspects rarely enjoy the consequences portion of the program, especially when those consequences arrive outside the same workplace they allegedly robbed.

Authorities also said Simmons confessed to the location of the handgun allegedly used during the robbery.

Police recovered the weapon, adding another significant piece of evidence to a case that apparently did not require Sherlock Holmes levels of deduction.

The allegations remain subject to the court process, but the reported sequence is astonishingly straightforward.

An employee allegedly robbed his own restaurant, terrorized coworkers who knew him, attempted to eliminate their communications, and then returned to work within roughly forty eight hours.

There is bold criminal behavior, and then there is walking directly back to the scene while investigators are still working the case.

The latter strategy tends to produce less freedom and more uncomfortable conversations with officers carrying handcuffs.

People should enjoy life, make responsible choices, and perhaps "Touch grass," as the saying goes.

Just do not allegedly rob your own employer and return two days later expecting everyone to forget, because stupid games still produce stupid prizes.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.