Another Employee's Reward for Stopping a Crime

[FLSurfdog]

Liability issues cause corporations to implement all kinds of stupid policies. Although we have fire extinguishers all over the place, our company policy is to exit the building in case of a fire because we are not trained in fire fighting. Even if it is a small trash can fire, we are to ignore it and leave. I assume they are covering their rear so that they are protected if I get burned putting out a fire. If a fire breaks out in my area, I'm putting it out and I'll let the chips fall.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[suntzu]

It is true that I didn't check my facts against all available statistics. I can honestly say, however, that I was not intentional deceitful. At least I took the time to let them know why I wouldn't be patronizing their business any longer. How many of you have done the same? Remember, the only thing that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing (paraphrase). I am not characterizing AutoZone as evil. I am simply saying that we should all (or at least those who believe AZ's policy is morally wrong, as I do) stop doing business with them, and let them know why. To restate the last sentence of my email, but putting the onus on us: The ball is now in our court. What are we going to do with it? I have done my part. Who's next?

Actually I am going to write a letter (I have for other things before but that is unrelated to this conversation). It will go something like this:

To Whom it may concern,

I am writing about the incident where an employee was terminated by not following your firearm policy. While I do feel as an owner you have the ultimate right to decise on what employees can do while observing the law I feel that you erred in the handling of this situation.

The young man was in compliance with your policy when he arrived for work. He did not initially have his firearm on his person. He exited the store and retrieved his POF in his POV. Though his actions can be debated as whether they were wise or not his actions did result in the fleeing of a serial robber and caused no harm to or injury to anyone.

The closest analogy I can think of is an aviator breaking flight safety rules by tryin to land thier airplane in zero visibility with no other aid than a compass and VOR. Though the airfield did not clear him for landng he nonetheless did so. A crash on landing could have brought injury to ground crew, tower crew, and other aircraft. The pilot was willing to risk this because of a passenger who was suffering a heart attack and in need of medical attention. The pilot does land the plane uneventfully and the heart attack victim survives.

The pilot in this case broke rules designed for the safety of him, his craft, passengers, and people on the ground. The result was a saved life. The young man broke rule that I assume were for the safety of himself, his fellow employees, patrons, and possible liability against your company. The result was a BG was caught and there were no injuries.

In both cases the rules should not be changed because of a single incident that was successful due to the skill of the employee or Providence. Punishment should be doled out to establish the policy but also the punishment should fit the actions and intent of the employee.

The young employee should be punished in a manner that reaffirms your commmitment to you firearm policy but also not terminating the employee. Zero tolerance seldom works and many time is unfair. Zero tolerance leaves little or no room for rationale decision making and for managers to use their leadership and decision making skill to make a determination on am employee's carreer.

Thank you for your time.



Please don't nit pick the pilot analogy with FAA rules.....just get the gist of it.

[pittypat21]

That was what I meant...duh.......He knew that it was the Faked-Beard Bandit and most likely knew he would not harm anyone if they complied. Anyway, as stated before, he was able to get out of the building where the BG was no threat to him.

If he was in fear for his life he negted the SD issue by going back in.

It does not matter to me either way....employers have the right to determine the rules. If you don;t like don't work for them. If YOU don't like then boycott them It is such a simple concept.

And, like I just said in another thread...just because something works in A SPECIFIC situation does not mean that a change of policy or law should be made.

When people see a gun being pointed around, they don't think, "Oh, well this guy hasn't killed anyone yet, so I'm sure everything will be fine". As the man stated, he was definitely afraid for his life. The Fake Beard Bandit is a criminal that robs places while armed with a deadly weapon. Nothing about that says, "Everything will be fine".

Sure, he could've exited the building and decided that he was safe and should leave, but instead he did what he (and I, FWIW) believe to be the right thing, and went in to defend his co-workers as well. It's not always about making sure you're safe, but helping others when they're in trouble as well.

[suntzu]

When people see a gun being pointed around, they don't think, "Oh, well this guy hasn't killed anyone yet, so I'm sure everything will be fine". As the man stated, he was definitely afraid for his life. The Fake Beard Bandit is a criminal that robs places while armed with a deadly weapon. Nothing about that says, "Everything will be fine".

Sure, he could've exited the building and decided that he was safe and should leave, but instead he did what he (and I, FWIW) believe to be the right thing, and went in to defend his co-workers as well. It's not always about making sure you're safe, but helping others when they're in trouble as well.

From what it sounds like, I'd say he had no problem with the companies policy about weapons in the work place. He did, after all, have to go out to his car to get the gun. He was clearly following policy up to the point that he re-entered the building. I'm sure that during that situation, the last thing he was thinking was, "I shouldn't go back in there with my gun, I'll probably get fired for violating company policy".

Just for fun here an because this is going nowhere.....I do not beleive he had a gun pointed hime. It appears he observed the BG come in and he snuck out. I amnot disputing what he felt anyway. Just saying I agree with the policy of an employer and if you read the post abbove yours you would also see I d not think he should be fired.

[pittypat21]

Actually I am going to write a letter (I have for other things before but that is unrelated to this conversation). It will go something like this:

To Whom it may concern,

I am writing about the incident where an employee was terminated by not following your firearm policy. While I do feel as an owner you have the ultimate right to decise on what employees can do while observing the law I feel that you erred in the handling of this situation.

The young man was in compliance with your policy when he arrived for work. He did not initially have his firearm on his person. He exited the store and retrieved his POF in his POV. Though his actions can be debated as whether they were wise or not his actions did result in the capture of a serial robber and caused no harm to or injury to anyone.

The closest analogy I can think of is an aviator breaking flight safety rules by tryin to land thier airplane in zero visibility with no other aid than a compass and VOR. Though the airfield did not clear him for landng he nonetheless did so. A crash on landing could have brought injury to ground crew, tower crew, and other aircraft. The pilot was willing to risk this because of a passenger who was suffering a heart attack and in need of medical attention. The pilot does land the plane uneventfully and the heart attack victim survives.

The pilot in this case broke rules designed for the safety of him, his craft, passengers, and people on the ground. The result was a saved life. The young man broke rule that I assume were for the safety of himself, his fellow employees, patrons, and possible liability against your company. The result was a BG was caught and there were no injuries.

In both cases the rules should not be changed because of a single incident that was successful due to the skill of the employee or Providence. Punishment should be doled out to establish the policy but also the punishment should fit the actions and intent of the employee.

The young employee should be punished in a manner that reaffirms your commmitment to you firearm policy but also not terminating the employee. Zero tolerance seldom works and many time is unfair. Zero tolerance leaves little or no room for rationale decision making and for managers to use their leadership and decision making skill to make a determination on am employee's carreer.

Thank you for your time.



Please don't nit pick the pilot analogy with FAA rules.....just get the gist of it.

I'd like to know where you saw that the Fake Beard Bandit was caught. Nowhere in the article states that he was caught, instead the video actually says that the criminal is still at large. A quick google search also shows nothing about the Fake Beard Bandit being caught.

[pittypat21]

Just for fun here an because this is going nowhere.....I do not beleive he had a gun pointed hime. It appears he observed the BG come in and he snuck out. I amnot disputing what he felt anyway. Just saying I agree with the policy of an employer and if you read the post abbove yours you would also see I d not think he should be fired.

I edited my post to leave out the last paragraph after reading one of your other posts that made my comment on the matter of policy pointless.

[GrandZJ]

I used to work for AutoZone. Doesn't surprise me that they fired him for what he did. I work for a competitor now and they're the same way. Zero tolerance to weapons. They also expect us to stop people from shoplifting without confronting them...how does that work?

[suntzu]

I edited my post to leave out the last paragraph after reading one of your other posts that made my comment on the matter of policy pointless.

As well as i will edit my letter to Autozone..I thought thet caught the BG LOL

Now, just for fun again.....he went in, knowing he was safe, having a moment to reflect on the BG's background (BG has not harmed anyone yet), goes in with a gun, (we don't know what his training is) and effectively does nothing but get fired. Most likely no one would get harmed, and if any money was taken then that is up to Autozone to care about. Good plan. This forum would be raking this man over the coals if the only difference was he got killed or another person got killed.

[wingit]

Too bad, I did a lot of business with AutoZone....not anymore. I respect their right to form their own policies, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Just sent corporate a message letting them know, but I doubt any of them will care.

I am going to do the same!

[pittypat21]

As well as i will edit my letter to Autozone..I thought thet caught the BG LOL

Now, just for fun again.....he went in, knowing he was safe, having a moment to reflect on the BG's background (BG has not harmed anyone yet), goes in with a gun, (we don't know what his training is) and effectively does nothing but get fired. Most likely no one would get harmed, and if any money was taken then that is up to Autozone to care about. Good plan. This forum would be raking this man over the coals if the only difference was he got killed or another person got killed.

Once again, I believe that whether he would get fired or not wasn't even on his mind. Also, when a situation like this happens, your adrenaline starts rushing, and you think one of two things. Fight, or Flight. Not, "Well this guy hasn't killed anybody yet in all his robberies, so I'm probably ok". Not to mention that this whole thing probably happened within 15-20 seconds (maybe less, but probably not much more). Not a whole lot of time to weigh the pros and cons.

[llmstratocaster]

These stores and there policies are so bass akwards that I was going into a Wal Mart a couple of weeks ago and a guy was running towards me and the exit door holding a big box that had stereo speakers. He was being quickly chased by four Wal Mart employees who were just 10-15 feet behind him who were trying to talk the guy into stopping.
They followed the guy all the way to his car, watched him start it up and then drive off. WOW!!!
Others that were watching this with me all had the same idea, if its that easy to steal at WalMart then why wait in the checkout line........

Again, liability. If they were to attempt to forcefully stop the man and he broke a pinky or scraped his knee, the window would be open for a number of frivolous lawsuits. I can't stand Walmart. Not saying I'm glad they got stolen from. But what happens to Walmart doesn't concern me. One thing is for sure. No low-life thug will ever steal from me.

[kapnketel]

Good letter Suntzu. Nailed it.

[noway2]

A criminal is just as likely to injure or kill his/her victim whether said victim is compliant or not.

I respect your point of view but the first part I bolded is simply not true. The vast majority of robberies are incident free (injury or death) if the employee is compliant and the corporations know this.

And yet self defense statutes in just about every state in the nation are written in a manner that is in direct conflict with this line of thinking. I am sure that there is a valid reason for this. Maybe it has something to do with protecting something other than the holy profit margin.

Personally, I think it is high time for corporate weenies in this country be held personally accountable for their actions and the consequences should come directly from their employees that they screw over. Perhaps if there were grave and painful consequences for their actions, they might start thinking twice about what they do and learn that they are not omnipotent.

[suntzu]

And yet self defense statutes in just about every state in the nation are written in a manner that is in direct conflict with this line of thinking. I am sure that there is a valid reason for this. Maybe it has something to do with protecting something other than the holy profit margin.

Personally, I think it is high time for corporate weenies in this country be held personally accountable for their actions and the consequences should come directly from their employees that they screw over. Perhaps if there were grave and painful consequences for their actions, they might start thinking twice about what they do and learn that they are not omnipotent.

And it is high time for people to make choices in their lives. I have no problems with boycots. If that floats your boat fine. But if I had a small business I would not want anybody I emplyee to have a gun with them unless they met my standards of safety and ability to handle a situation....and I can garuntee you that very few woould. In this case the man was not even using the weapon for SD. He decided to play LEO....

[OldVet]

Originally Posted by SmokinFool

"A criminal is just as likely to injure or kill his/her victim whether said victim is compliant or not."

That's a rediculous statement. Most weapons are presented to intimidate the victim into submission, and in the vast majority fired when things don't go as planned or the victim fights back. And then there are the few BGs who don't wish to leave witness regardless of submission. Your statement implies that every victim would be shot regardless of level of submission.