Another Employee's Reward for Stopping a Crime

[noway2]

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.

And how is one supposed to know if they are going to be one of the grand majority or not? You can't and you don't. This is why attempting to intimidate with the threat of deadly force is grounds for the use of actual deadly force. Compliance does not guarantee safety and you can't assume that it will.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[noway2]

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.

And we are back to this circular logic problem once again and this is why I have become an advocate of having a tiered permit system as a means to address Bubba Joe being a safety issue.

[rogertc1]

I am a goin to boycott all business and products that do not allow their employees to have guns at work!@!!! I aint paying any taxes either cause the government don't let their employes to have guns neither...except for the Cops and Military.
Golly, not sure where I will get my next car or food for my table? People woking for the electric company and cable cant carry guns neither. What am I to do? Boycott!@!

[suntzu]

And we are back to this circular logic problem once again and this is why I have become an advocate of having a tiered permit system as a means to address Bubba Joe being a safety issue.

I am in favor of no government involvement including permits and mandatory training. Leave it up to the employer.

[SmokinFool]

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.

I already stated that I didn't verify my assertion with available statistics. I also stated that I was not intentional deceitful. We seem to be not dealing with the forest for concentrating on the trees. Let's move on.

[noway2]

I am in favor of no government involvement including permits and mandatory training. Leave it up to the employer.

I agree with your position with respect to letting the INDIVIDUAL decided if they want to pursue advanced training and that it should not be mandated. Where I don't see any way around the govt getting involved is with regards to laying the groundwork for privileges and responsibilities associated with said training. What I mean by this, is if one decides to obtain advanced training, I think it would take force of govt (law) to stipulate that restriction ABC123 doesn't apply to them, even over the protestations of a business or property owner. As I said in another post, one is generally not allowed to tell the police that they have to disarm and I am suggestion a similar system for the private citizen; a system designed to address the safety concerns.

[DamnitBob]

I worked for those jackasses for 10 years. Nothing about this story surprises me. Lots of people see a cheap price and quit looking, maybe some of those people will look at stories like this and find a better place to shop. From an employee standpoint (like most big corporations I suspect), Autozone has but one loyalty...to the stockholders. Hope the employee finds a better job.

[nmbr5ml]

Autozone is the only place I can find the German Castrol 0W30. Sounds like, according to the story, the sack of dirt was trying to escape when the employee confronted him. Under those circumstances, at that point, seems like allowing his escape would have been the safest bet. I'm relying on what was reported in the media, but what he did seems like the most dangerous course of action possible.

[Illusive Man]

How would we be viewing this incident had the employee challenging the BG caused the BG to start shooting in the store wounding or killing someone? I worked with a lot of folks while working in management for AZ and can tell you from personal experience that there are not many of these guys that I would be comfortable with being armed. If someone had been shot because of this action, AZ would be liable (as they should be). The employee was out of the store and away from danger. He should have called the police and practiced being a good witness. Some of you don't want to shop at a store that doesn't allow it's employees to be armed, well I don't want to shop in a store where a bunch of folks that are untrained are running around with weapons. Not firing this employee would have sent a message to others that such actions were OK, and I can almost guarantee that at some point employees waving guns at BG's would end in a much worse tragedy than this guy getting fired.

[KSP]

Certainly, autozone has ever right to set its company policies. And legally, they seemingly have the right to fire said employee. But I am under no obligation to worry about AZ's liability risk or profit margins. They choose to fire the employee, and they risk losing my business. Surely, some lawyer or corporate executive weighed those risks and decided it was worth it. My guess is that it was more of a fear based decision rather then a hard look at the potential negative publicity costs.

I think its fair to say that there has been a certain amount of negative publicity. I would surmise that the average AZ customer is more gun friendly then the population at large. I can assure you that the most gun unfriendly people I know have never stepped into an AZ. Ultimately, I will choose not to shop at AZ for as long as I can remember this incident. I know that other auto stores might have the exact same policies, but they haven't proven to me that they will fire one of their employees in such a cold, lawyerly manner. And in the meantime, the employee who drove off an armed criminal has to miss a few paychecks, apply for a new job, explain himself to potentially skeptical employers, and hopefully find a sympathetic employer who will take care of him.

All of which reminds me of the story a few months back about progressive insurance, which helped defend the drunk driver who killed one of their own clients, in order to minimize the payout they would have to give to the dead girls family. Hopefully, I remember this story for the rest of my life and never use progressive.

[preachertim]

I think that was GraySkies point that you might've missed: a few of them are at HQ. But seriously, can you cite one case in which an employer incurred penalty as a consequence of responsible self defense by an employee? It's heavy-handed and dimwitted risk management. Like general gun bans and prohibitions, the facts don't bear out the fears.

Who gets the comp if you are dead? Brilliant!!! This is why they will take our rights if we keep living by something motivated by money and not Morals.

[preachertim]

That he did not become Compliant to a bully. Maybe we should just stop trying! That is what the brainwashing does to us. The Laws should be changed as they are in many states to support the Good Samaritan who risked his own life to try and save another. Risk! !!! That word stretches the second amendment many different ways. Eventually The supreme court will give in also

How would we be viewing this incident had the employee challenging the BG caused the BG to start shooting in the store wounding or killing someone? I worked with a lot of folks while working in management for AZ and can tell you from personal experience that there are not many of these guys that I would be comfortable with being armed. If someone had been shot because of this action, AZ would be liable (as they should be). The employee was out of the store and away from danger. He should have called the police and practiced being a good witness. Some of you don't want to shop at a store that doesn't allow it's employees to be armed, well I don't want to shop in a store where a bunch of folks that are untrained are running around with weapons. Not firing this employee would have sent a message to others that such actions were OK, and I can almost guarantee that at some point employees waving guns at BG's would end in a much worse tragedy than this guy getting fired.

[SmokinFool]

How would we be viewing this incident had the employee challenging the BG caused the BG to start shooting in the store wounding or killing someone? I worked with a lot of folks while working in management for AZ and can tell you from personal experience that there are not many of these guys that I would be comfortable with being armed. If someone had been shot because of this action, AZ would be liable (as they should be). The employee was out of the store and away from danger. He should have called the police and practiced being a good witness. Some of you don't want to shop at a store that doesn't allow it's employees to be armed, well I don't want to shop in a store where a bunch of folks that are untrained are running around with weapons. Not firing this employee would have sent a message to others that such actions were OK, and I can almost guarantee that at some point employees waving guns at BG's would end in a much worse tragedy than this guy getting fired.

Since you bring in a hypothetical, let's look at another hypothetical situation. What if the BG had decided to shoot someone, or multiple people, and no one there had the ability to stop it because there weren't any customers carrying at the time this occurred, and no employees had the means to stop it because they weren't allowed to carry at work?

I respect the fact that businesses can set whatever policy they wish as it pertains to guns while at work. And from what we know of this story, the employee in question didn't handle it the best way he could have. However, I certainly don't feel he should have been fired over it. These "zero tolerance" policies do more harm than good in many cases, because most situations aren't black or white, but rather various shades of grey.

ETA: My choice in this instance was to stop patronizing AZ'z stores, and to let hem know why. They won't miss my few thousand dollars I spent there in the past and would have continued spending there had this not occurred, but they may miss the potentially very large sum of money that we all would have spent there, assuming that most of us actually follow through with the boycott idea.

[Colleen]

I'll play the other side, AutoZone does not train their employees in self-defense. In their minds, Most of their staff are not as competent as Devin McClean. Think lawyers and liabilities. There are a lot of idiots out there and its a safe bet AutoZone employs a few.

What's liability money compared to a human life? These corporations have already paid that liability through the insurance they pay to protect their business from liability suits. Devin is a smart and compassionate man. He cares about his country and he thinks of others first. He served in the military where he received his expert marksman badge. He is trained in self defense by the military. His military training also taught him to leave no man behind. So when he had the chance to get outside and retrieve his weapon, he took it and then went back for his manager. Something else that should be mentioned, the night before this incident, just two towns away, a convenience store was robbed. The store clerk complied with the robber's demands. He did not fight He did not try to stand up to the robber. He gave him the money. He was shot to death anyway. So there ya go. Compliance is not always the answer. Life first is the answer. Devin's boss's life was Devin's answer to the situation. This same robber had already held up this same AutoZone just a month or so before. Devin had already been through this. He chose to stand up to the robber this time. How many chances should he have given this guy? Let him take the money again knowing he would just keep coming back since the store was an easy mark? How many times should he have just let the guy keep coming back and chance that the next time the robber would shoot someone? This guy has robbed 60+ stores and has not been caught yet. Eventually guys like that get egos and believe they will never be caught. They always take the next step and eventually pull the trigger just for the thrill. Devin only had it in his head to leave no man behind. He is not some idiot with a gun. He is a hero who was trying to stop an idiot with a gun. He could have fired his weapon at any point. He did not. His actions were not about taking a life. His actions were about saving a life. I'd say Devin acted in a well trained and professional manner. No one got hurt. The robber is still running around free with his gun to rob some more stores until the next hero points a gun at him and maybe this time he doesn't get away. If you knew Devin like I do, you would know your playing devil's advocate is not warranted in this particular event. AutoZone is wrong. They should have had security in the store to protect their customers and employees knowing the store had already been robbed by this guy and knowing he was still out there robbing area stores. They should be sued for not protecting their employees and their customers. As far as AutoZone employing idiots, I put their bean counters on that list along with the corporate money suckers who have no regard for lives or the people who try to protect lives.

Signed, Devin's aunt.

[Colleen]

And from what we know of this story, the employee in question didn't handle it the best way he could have.

Just curious. How is it that he did not handle it in the best way he could have? He is ex military. He is trained in self defense. He is an expert marksman. He handled it as well as any police officer would have. He actually did better because I think a cop would have just blown the guy away even if his hands were in the air. The gun was still in his hand. That's enough for any police officer to fire on him. With Devin's way, no one got hurt. IF it had gone differently, it would have been the untrained robber who got hurt....or killed. He was up against a man trained by the military.