Autozone employee FIRED after defending store from armed robbery!!

[KeithTalent]

Completely disagree. Employees running to their cars to tote guns into the workplace to inflame a situation is no way to run a business. The counter jockeys are not trained with firearms and nobody wants to be in a situation where some asshole who subscribes to Soldier of Fortune sees a chance to get his name in the paper and gets the customers caught in a crossfire. Hand over the money calmly, get the guy out of the store with the least chance of some innocent bystander getting shot and then let the police handle it.

100% this.

KT

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Ok, I get it.. the policy is in place to prevent exactly this scenario. But that wasn't how it went down.

Now, I've got another one for you. Corporate policies and handbooks aside (or in place - either way doesn't matter). You're working the counter and in walks an armed robber. You don't know this guys's intentions. You can argue he's just there for the money, but you KNOW that. You automatically have to assume that here is a man with a gun and bad intentions who intends to do me harm up to and potentially including my life.

Are you really going to tell me that you're not going to try and defend yourself by any means available to to in a life or death situaion (and being confronted by a man with a weapon you must automatically assume it is)? Are you really that much of a lemming just because it's printed in some corporate handbook?

What's interesting about this particular case is that it was not the same as your hypothetical. Here, at least according to the article, the clerk recognized the robber as the "Fake Beard Bandit," who had robbed at least 30 other businesses. As such, he knew that numerous other stores had been robbed by this guy without anyone being hurt. Moreover, if his fear was for his own safety, he could have gotten in his truck and driven away, rather than going to his truck, getting his gun, and coming back. I don't think this particular set of facts can be explained by him acting out of fear for his own life.

 

[Tweak155]

What's interesting about this particular case is that it was not the same as your hypothetical. Here, at least according to the article, the clerk recognized the robber as the "Fake Beard Bandit," who had robbed at least 30 other businesses. As such, he knew that numerous other stores had been robbed by this guy without anyone being hurt. Moreover, if his fear was for his own safety, he could have gotten in his truck and driven away, rather than going to his truck, getting his gun, and coming back. I don't think this particular set of facts can be explained by him acting out of fear for his own life.

Either way I think you're both headed down the wrong line of reasoning.

Things like this aren't handled on a case-by-case basis. Condoning this guy for his actions would mean condoning using a weapon in all future cases as well. This is bad policy, as the company was extremely lucky the situation ended up the way it did.

Like I said before, you should value your life over your job. This guy should have no qualms over losing his job, he quite possibly gained his own life in the outcome. He came out ahead no matter how you look at it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This case reminds me of a robbery of a Minneapolis bank when I was in high school or college. A man armed with a gun robbed the bank, and a customer tried to interfere and ended up getting shot. He then expressed outrage when the bank refused to pay for his medical care, and one of the local news stations picked it up as a human interest story, trying to get the public outraged at the bank's decision. To me the bank was acting rationally - the last thing it wants is a customer getting hurt or killed trying to defend the bank's (insured) money against an armed robber.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Either way I think you're both headed down the wrong line of reasoning.

Things like this aren't handled on a case-by-case basis. Condoning this guy for his actions would mean condoning using a weapon in all future cases as well. This is bad policy, as the company was extremely lucky the situation ended up the way it did.

Like I said before, you should value your life over your job. This guy should have no qualms over losing his job, he quite possibly gained his own life in the outcome. He came out ahead no matter how you look at it.

You're mistaken, because if his goal was to protect his own life, he could simply have stayed out of the line of fire rather than going to his truck, getting a gun and coming back. He did not "gain his own life," he risked his own life needlessly and contrary to company policy. I still think he acted bravely and his behavior doesn't upset me, but I agree 100% with Autozone firing him - to me, as an attorney, they really had no choice.

 

[Tweak155]

This case reminds me of a robbery of a Minneapolis bank when I was in high school or college. A man armed with a gun robbed the bank, and a customer tried to interfere and ended up getting shot. He then expressed outrage when the bank refused to pay for his medical care, and one of the local news stations picked it up as a human interest story, trying to get the public outraged at the bank's decision. To me the bank was acting rationally - the last thing it wants is a customer getting hurt or killed trying to defend the bank's (insured) money against an armed robber.

I don't see how it is the banks responsibility for the customer getting shot. It's not like they sent the robber in there. I don't see why they should have to pay.

But, it would have been a good PR move. So ultimately a bad business decision in the end.

 

[Tweak155]

You're mistaken, because if his goal was to protect his own life, he could simply have stayed out of the line of fire rather than going to his truck, getting a gun and coming back. He did not "gain his own life," he risked his own life. I still think he acted bravely and his behavior doesn't upset me, but I agree 100% with Autozone firing him - to me, as an attorney, they really had no choice.

That's just the way I put it. Ultimately I feel what made it worth his effort was his manager (based on the article it seems the manager was in the store).

So, I'd also be fine with losing my job and saving someone else's. I'm just thinking in a future case this was a possible outcome (of saving your own life).

 

[Pr0d1gy]

You're mistaken, because if his goal was to protect his own life, he could simply have stayed out of the line of fire rather than going to his truck, getting a gun and coming back. He did not "gain his own life," he risked his own life needlessly and contrary to company policy. I still think he acted bravely and his behavior doesn't upset me, but I agree 100% with Autozone firing him - to me, as an attorney, they really had no choice.

Thus you see why the rest of us find you, and your chosen profession, to be the scum of the Earth. This kid saved a man's life, and thwarted a robbery, and because of some potential litigation for the company he loses his job. Our legal system is complete trash.

 

[Tweak155]

Thus you see why the rest of us find you, and your chosen profession, to be the scum of the Earth. This kid saved a man's life, and thwarted a robbery, and because of some potential litigation for the company he loses his job. Our legal system is complete trash.

Legal system is irrelevant. This was a business decision.

EDIT:

I guess I take that back. I can see how the business decision was directly influenced by the law. In fact it becomes more and more obvious as I think about it.

Still, the business can choose ethics over laws.

 

[Jaskalas]

Really bad PR. The company has just announced that any robber will get paid, and employees will not resist. This puts all employees in danger.

How? That is SOP for our ENTIRE society.

 

[KeithTalent]

How? That is SOP for our ENTIRE society.

Yeah this; the quoted comment makes zero sense.

KT

 

[rasczak]

Really bad PR. The company has just announced that any robber will get paid, and employees will not resist. This puts all employees in danger.

They already know that hence why so many of these stores get burglarized. This scenario is only the minority. When I worked at HD, we told the same thing. Do NOT antagonize the thief. Give them what they want and let them go. The safety of the customers and employees was always paramount.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Completely disagree. Employees running to their cars to tote guns into the workplace to inflame a situation is no way to run a business. The counter jockeys are not trained with firearms and nobody wants to be in a situation where some asshole who subscribes to Soldier of Fortune sees a chance to get his name in the paper and gets the customers caught in a crossfire. Hand over the money calmly, get the guy out of the store with the least chance of some innocent bystander getting shot and then let the police handle it.

Women...

 

[sixone]

How? That is SOP for our ENTIRE society.

Because now the company is on TV and in the papers and all over the internet, advertising the fact that they're an easy mark. Criminals will see that, and go there instead of taking an unknown risk at another business, where the owner might be armed or disinclined to cooperate by handing over the cash.

This puts all Autozone employees at a higher risk than they otherwise would have faced.

 

[rasczak]

I don't see how it is the banks responsibility for the customer getting shot. It's not like they sent the robber in there. I don't see why they should have to pay.

But, it would have been a good PR move. So ultimately a bad business decision in the end.

The injury occurred on their property and did not provide sufficient security. That is how this scenario would be played out. There's ALWAYS someone at fault. If you can't get the robber, you get the next best thing.

 

[rasczak]

Women...

Don't be a dick dude. Why is her opinion discredited because of her sex?

 

[Dari]

How? That is SOP for our ENTIRE society.

False. It's the job of the police to deal with this, not employees. If he had time to go get his gun, he probably had time to get a lot of information and call police to take care of it. He may have done the right thing according to his morals but Autozone has a business to run and we are a society of rules and laws. Putting this guy on a pedestal would have sent a message to other employees to take matters into their own hands. Most are not trained for that.

 

[KeithTalent]

False. It's the job of the police to deal with this, not employees. If he had time to go get his gun, he probably had time to get a lot of information and call police to take care of it. He may have done the right thing according to his morals but Autozone has a business to run and we are a society of laws. Putting this guy on a pedestal would have sent a message to other employees to take matters into their own hands. Most are not trained for that.

I think you misunderstood the post you quoted. :hmm:

KT

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Thus you see why the rest of us find you, and your chosen profession, to be the scum of the Earth. This kid saved a man's life, and thwarted a robbery, and because of some potential litigation for the company he loses his job. Our legal system is complete trash.

I don't think most people find me personally "the scum of the Earth," and I don't particularly care about, or respect, anyone who does. I don't know who you are, nor do I care to, but if you're prepared to hate me simply for being an attorney I consider you a fool. I expect that if and when you need an attorney to, say, defend you or a loved one against criminal charges, to prosecute someone who has wronged you, or to defend you against a frivolous lawsuit, you will conveniently adopt a healthier and more nuanced perspective toward my profession.

Let me put this another way that does not rely on concepts of legal liability: allowing minimum-wage hourly employees with no law enforcement training to act in a law enforcement capacity needlessly endangers public safety. Apparently the "Fake Beard Bandit" had robbed dozens of other stores without any injuries or fatalities. The actions of this clerk needlessly increased the danger to himself, his manager, and the public. I am reminded of what happened to a member of the Glock Talk forums, which I used to frequent - he was a lawful CCL holder and tried to intervene in the robbery of a liquor store. As tends to happen, the bad guy was more willing to pull the trigger, and the good guy was shot and killed. His family and friends were left with the knowledge that while he had acted, in a sense, bravely, he was dead in the interest of protecting $80 in the till of a stranger's liquor store.

I still think the clerk in this instance acted bravely, but his actions were foolish and I don't see how any business can afford to condone this kind of behavior.

 

[disappoint]

Autozone should be sued. By the robber. He never got to rob the place because one of their employees acted in an un-Autozone like manner.

 

[Dari]

I think you misunderstood the post you quoted. :hmm:

KT

No I didn't. He was being cynical as usual.

 

[waggy]

Pretty much this. I think the guy acted bravely, but the company cannot afford to tolerate employees taking the law into their own hands this way. The clerk's actions dramatically increased the risk that this robbery would escalate into a gunfight in which someone (be it the robber, the clerk or a third party, perhaps a customer) was hurt or killed. If the company does nothing to the clerk and another employee does the same thing, leading to a large, deadly shootout, Autozone will be sued into the ground.

yeah. i fully understand why autozone did it. i agree with them also.

 

[Tweak155]

The injury occurred on their property and did not provide sufficient security. That is how this scenario would be played out. There's ALWAYS someone at fault. If you can't get the robber, you get the next best thing.

?

The customer brandished a gun, he is the one at fault for getting himself shot.....................

Lot's of place don't provide "proficient security" (not that this makes it ok, but it should be a known risk). If it was a personal-carry state, they'd have no grounds anyway.

 

[KeithTalent]

No I didn't. He was being cynical as usual.

:hmm:

KT

 

[Dari]

Because now the company is on TV and in the papers and all over the internet, advertising the fact that they're an easy mark. Criminals will see that, and go there instead of taking an unknown risk at another business, where the owner might be armed or disinclined to cooperate by handing over the cash.

This puts all Autozone employees at a higher risk than they otherwise would have faced.

Assuming everything you say is true, it doesn't change the fact that the business will not be legally liable should something go wrong.