This is a discussion on Walmart employees fired after disarming gunman. within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by Janq Agreed, very much. Yup. A pyrrhic victory at best. : | Folk in these positions have to think on their feet ...
The LP employee (singular) personal choice to use poor tactics to start (at the store floor) was the catalyst for what then and _later_ ultimately resulted in their being jammed up in a box (small room) and by that _secondarily_ finding themselves in a fight for survival.
There is no ending without a beginning. We _do not_ live in a vacuum.
Choose your own adventure.
For those folk who do not understand the concept and realities of spatial relationships as related to combat (a fight), below is a very well known clip demonstrating very simply same as was featured in the Hollyweird movie; Ronin (1998).
"I ambushed you with a cup of coffee."
This Wal-Mart event is the sort of life experience lesson that one only need suffer once, if they survive it, to learn from.
Ask any K-12 kid who's ever been jumped in a locker room or 'contained' in a bathroom.
Further contrary to common assumption numbers mean little when working with a determined adversary. Ask any person who has jail/prison guard or real & actual police experience.
- Pitfall Harry
"Horse sense: Noun 1. horse sense - sound practical judgment." - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/horse+sense
These folks did the right thing. The policy is flawed because it basically says you are supposed to allow people to shoplift and only stop the one's who are not armed as if you know until it's way too late. Once you commit to acting as they did you have to follow it through or risk injury or death to you and other's. As a Police Officer I know this all too well and that is what people don't get when they see a Cop fighting a resistant party into handcuff's is that you have to meet force with greater force or risk injury or death not force at the same level. It's like being attacked by a Great White shark when you are swimming along and peace nicks preaching to you that you should have never provoked the shark by swimming.
It is a unreasonable to risk your life over property but that is not what happened in this case. These folks had no choice. This guy actually told them of his intention's as well when he said "don't make me do this" Instead of being fired they should be promoted to regional managers and the Police Chief of that town should give them awards. I will send a link of this story to FOX NEWS and see if they can help these folks out.
If you can read this thank a teacher. If it is written in English thank a Marine.
Gain a 2A vote, take a fence-sitter shooting.
I have to say that normally I agree with everything Janq has to say, this time I think he is off base. And while Hopyard may be a bit(ok a heck of a lot) more liberal than I am, I can usually see where he is coming from even if I don't agree with him 100%.
Three of the employees were specifically hired and payed for "Loss Prevention". One followed company policy and detained a suspected shoplifter with minimum force. Who(the BG) then threatened the life of one employee with a gun to his back. Could you, would you watch this happen when you had the means to intervene? Forget the employee who was threatened. Would you have felt justified in letting an agitated, armed criminal walk through the store populated by unsuspecting people to meet the PoPo at the front door?
Did they go against corporate policy? Only once their lives had been threatened! Walmart needs to nut up and admit that their policy is one dimensional and allow for the fact that good and loyal employees sometimes have to think for themselves and do what needs to be done.
Janq I see and understand your many points however i'm assuming Wal-marts policy is to detain and escort a suspected theif to a secondary location away from customers i'm assuming for the safety of the customers and to avoid a scene. Also this detainment only is supposed to occur if the suspected theif complies, if they turn and run its my understanding LP is supposed to let them go and call the police.
Thus far the employees are following said policy. Now they have the suspect in a 2nd location away from customers and determine said suspect has in fact stolen a lap top. Now I'm assuming since the suspect has admitted to taking the property with no intentions of paying for it policy is to call the police to come and arrest the theif while being detained by the LP away from customers for customer safety.
Everything is going according to policy until the now proven theif presents a deadly weapon and threatens LP and management how should the employees handle this situation according to policy and come out alive? What would you recommend they do?
I think they handled the situation quite well with a great outcome up until they are fired. I agree it would be easier not to confront any suspected theif and just call the police with a description and provide video of the perp. However that is not wal marts policy they hire LP to minimize stolen property and handle the DVD theives on their own as 99% of their encounters are not violent or we would here much more about these occurances.
I'm not a Wal-Mart fan but I am a fan of people doing there job and for sure having jobs not sponging off the rest of hard working Americans. If I were in their situation I would hope I'd have handled it the same way regardless of policy my life is more important.
If this situation would have occured in the parking lot where a gunmen walks up to a CC'er i'm guessing the gunmen would be shot and no charges filed against the CC'er for acting in self defense as these emplyees did.
It's against policy? It's a crime to steal and use a gun in the said crime also. This person came to steal while armed! I can only assume that he was armed with the intent to use the gun. I don't care that he said let me go and nothing will happen (even with a pretty please), I can only assume he is going to use it, so I will do everything in my power to make sure he dosen't take me out. Be it shot, stab, kick, spit, and etc. and the hell with company policy. Fire me if you want, but I will protect MYSELF. Pfff, on Walmart! I don't shop there and never will. Beside who in heck is going to worry or think about company policy when that gun came into play?
As for a "small room", that is entirely subjective. Every room is going to seem smaller when someone is waving a gun at you. I'd consider a 50x50ft room to be small if there isn't any cover from a gunman.
Confronting him in the store after watching him put it in his coat, that is against policy (at least it was when I was LP). We could annoy them by hanging around, pretending to fix shelves, asking if they need help and the like, but it was against policy to acknowledge that they have hidden merchandise. Supposedly they might have a guilty conscious with you hanging around and stash it somewhere, or end up paying for it. Confronting them supposedly risked a confrontation in the middle of the store where they have no escape. That was to be done at the door so they could run if they wanted, because we couldn't physically touch them.
You can reference all the news reports of botched shoplifting you want, but the common factors in all of them is that they were both botched and reported. You never hear about the dozens of routine detentions that happen every day in LP.
Its also worth noting that the assistant manager who came in had 12 years experience, and the LP manager had 7. Reasoning that they had been fired for bring him to the back room to begin with would require the following assumptions:
A)They had never caught a single shoplifter in their career and thus never came in contact with the policy. This seems highly unlikely.
B) The policy against bring a shoplifter to the back room is severe enough that a single infraction is immediate dismissal.
C)They had never brought a shoplifter to that room before.
D) They arbitrarily decided to bring this one shoplifter there, knowing it was in violation of policy and inconsistent with their previously unblemished record.
E) This one shoplifter randomly happens to be the one who would draw a gun.
B-D are possible, but unlikely. E in combination with D is extremely unlikely.
The story I referenced was an example that it can go botched inside a back room, or in the middle of the store. Certainly they should use SA and stack the odds in the LP's favor.
When I speak of survival mode (and what these LP guys did when a gun appeared), I'm talking about that millisecond reaction that your normal instinct says to immediately do, will often override what you remember reading in the policy handbook.
The law may say to use your turn signal when changing lanes, but faced with an imminent car crash one probably won't think about using their turn signal when swerving.
Gain a 2A vote, take a fence-sitter shooting.
I've seen WM LP/security quite literally pick up and drag a screaming, violent individual from the pharmacy, across the store, and out the front. So I don't think the hands on issue by itself is the issue here.
Here is a part of the story which concerns me: " Lt. Vickie Wax and a Wal-Mart security officer questioned Williams about a suspected shoplifting. A source close to the investigation tells 9 News that Williams was stealing disposable cameras, after he purchased more than $40 worth of merchandise. Police say when Wax tried to handcuff Williams, he punched her in the face, which knocked her to the floor."
I'm all for women having full rights and opportunity, but .... I think it might well have gone very differently had that been a guy trying to put the cuffs on him.