Compliance doesn't work, defending yourself

[oakchas]

doesn't work, and running away doesn't work.

Any of these actions will get you fired...

I've posted stories of two women at 2 convenience stores in Iowa who complied with an armed robber's demands almost two years ago, and got killed for doing it. But they didn't get fired.

We know about the grocery store manager, pizza guy, and the pharmacist who were fired for shooting the armed robber.

I posted about the KFC mgr. that complied, per company policy, and got fired.

Now we have an asst. mgr. of an Arby's, with 23 years service to them, who escapes out the drive up window... And she gets fired.

Is it any wonder she "doesn't want to work for them any more?"

Story here: http://wap.whiotv.com/site.htm?targe...-robbed/nShGL/

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[bigdogtx]

So she was supposed to put her life in danger for less than $500,,,,,,Their food was never that good IMO.....

[overblown]

"she knowingly violated the company's safety and security policy, and had been warned before." Seems pretty clear cut to me. They don't want only one person to be in the store. They warned her about it, yet she did it again. Just so happened that on that night, this creep decides to rob the joint. From the looks of it, if some other event than the robbery had revealed she once again broke policy, the end result would still be the same. Fired.

[oneshot]

"she knowingly violated the company's safety and security policy, and had been warned before." Seems pretty clear cut to me. They don't want only one person to be in the store. They warned her about it, yet she did it again. Just so happened that on that night, this creep decides to rob the joint. From the looks of it, if some other event than the robbery had revealed she once again broke policy, the end result would still be the same. Fired.

^^^^^^^Sounds to me^^^^^^^^^^

Like they were closing the store for the night, and the other person left just minutes before she was supposed to.

Also, as if the guy would not have done the same thing with two women there, only now, the company may have had to explain two deaths or injuries.

[Hiram25]

Regardless of the ending, she is still alive, and can look for employment with the competition.

[paching]

My company (wife and family) supercedes any companies policy. Unemployment isn't that bad, It beats pushing daisies. I'd rather be fired than being fired upon or killed

[overblown]

I'm not saying she should have stayed or that she would have been any safer with another person there. Just that the company had every right to fire her in this case. And it had nothing to do with her escaping the attacker.

[steffen]

OP,

I wasn't able to find the links to the other stories you mentioned so I could compare them to this one, can you point me in the right direction?

[oakchas]

OP,

I wasn't able to find the links to the other stories you mentioned so I could compare them to this one, can you point me in the right direction?

they've all been posted in "in the news"
the ladies in small towns north of des moines iowa of of i35: Minn. teen charged in Iowa convenience store killings led troubled life | kare11.com

the walgreens pharmacist: Michigan Walgreens Pharmacist Jeremy Hoven Fired After Shooting at Robbers - ABC News

kfc, ooops it was carl's jr. mgr: Manager survives armed robbery, gets fired | KMOV.com St. Louis

kroger man fired after shooting robber: Kroger store manager called a hero, but not in the 'all clear' just yet - WSBT-TV

oh yes... and all the firings were over "policies" of the employers... they couldn't fire the two convenience store clerks, except posthumously, i suppose...

pardon any typos and no caps... only have one hand at present.. shoulder surgery yesterday.

there are more stories about all of these incidents... but I wasn't going to find them all for you... yo have google too.

[mprp]

Ooooo, good luck with the shoulder oakchas.

So, odds are that she would have been in trouble no matter what. If she would have left without getting her job done, (manager, possibly salary) = in trouble.

If she would have kept another employee and ran him or her into overtime, = in trouble.

If she would have been able to defend herself and put the dirtbag in the dirt, = in trouble.

I would say that realistically, her screw up was when she opened the door in condition white. Not to say that said dirtbag wouldn't have been waiting until she was leaving anyway.

[steffen]

Thank you so much for putting those links up. The search function doesn't work properly from my browser at work, but fortunatly the quick-reply does. Hopefully you have a quick recovery with your shoulder.

[Pistology]

OP, the Kroger store manager, Elijah "Levi" Elliott, 24, wasn't fired, though he admits violating company policy in defense of the lives of his co-workers. From the embedded link (link in my link), "Elliott, who has worked at Kroger for six years, thanked the company for its support in the aftermath of the shooting and for being 'genuinely concerned about my well-being.' He said the company offered to keep him on, but he said he wants a fresh start."
The Arby's/Carl's Jr. manager, Cathy Terry was fired for reasons unrelated to the robbery; and she and her coworker were offered counseling.
The Walgreen's pharmacist, Jeremy Hoven, is suing Walgreen's with their non-existent, "non-escalation" policy that they cited when they fired him, although the larger community is supportive of Hoven.
Most on this forum are in agreement that a business operator should not have to check the right of armed self defense at work. Hoven's case against Walgreens may remedy. Hope this helps the thread.

[mlr1m]

Folks need to realize that company policies are in place to protect the company not the employee. While some of the policies may benefit the employees that is just a side benefit. If an employees is killed during a robbery attempt it will probably cost the company less that what it might have cost if that employee pulled a weapon and injured an innocent customer or bystander.
Its like workers comp. While it helps an employee who is injured on the job its main benefit is to the employer. It prevents him from being sued by the injured party under normal conditions. I do not doubt that the two person policy was recommended by the companies lawyer to help prevent lawsuits by employees who could claim working alone was a danger the company should have known about.

Michael

[steffen]

Folks need to realize that company policies are in place to protect the company not the employee...

This is so true. I would like to think that there were policies in place that protected employees. For example, if an employer restricts someone who follows applicable state laws from carrying a concealed handgun for self-defense, then the employer should have a responsibility to provide armed security. For all of the stories in this thread, these businesses were open to the public with nothing more separating the employees from criminals other than glass doors.

...
If an employees is killed during a robbery attempt it will probably cost the company less that what it might have cost if that employee pulled a weapon and injured an innocent customer or bystander.
...

This sort of thing makes me glad that my employer has armed guards patrolling every entry to the facility.

[steffen]

While poking around other threads I found this info:

Wisconsin Statute 175.60 Concealed Carry Law
(21) Immunity.
(a) The department of justice, the department of transportation, and the employees of each department; clerks, as defined in sub. (11) (a) 1. a., and their staff; and court automated information systems, as defined under sub. (11) (a) 1. b., and their employees are immune from liability arising from any act or omission under this section, if done so in good faith.
(b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
(c) An employer that does not prohibit one or more employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub. (15m) is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
(d) A person providing a firearms training course in good faith is immune from liability arising from any act or omission related to the course if the course is one described in sub. (4) (a).
History: 2011 a. 35; s. 13.92 (1) (bm) 2.
Wisconsin's Concealed Carry Law. Hinkston. Wis. Law. July 2012.

I wonder if there are similar statues in other states that provide immunity for property owners and place liability on the individuals who use the weapon.