Autozone employee FIRED after defending store from armed robbery!!

[Ferzerp]

Do you REALLY believe corporations have your best interests at heart?

In this case yes, because if you work there, your dying (or being injured) during a robbery is expensive for the company and just the situation they want to avoid. If you are a rational individual, this is also the situation you want to avoid. If you work at a store, and it is robbed, you've lost nothing. You may have PTSD, and the company will pay for therapy, but at least you're alive. Statistically, compliance gives you the highest survival rate, and unless you're a psychologist capable of rationally determining if the robber fits a profile that would suggest an intent to injure you, you're better off playing statistics.

Why would you risk yourself for a faceless corporation? (I have some ideas, but none of them really paint a very rosy picture about your mental state if you would).

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

No, they have to be coerced into taking any action based on any motivation other than the immediate improvement of their financial results.

It's the best reason to not reform the system WRT liability.

So, you're happy with the status quo?

 

[3chordcharlie]

So, you're happy with the status quo?

That seems like a loaded question

In what sense are you asking?

 

[mugs]

While the perps record is a strong indicator, the Autozone employee didn't know his record. Hindsight is 20:20 Common sense tells me to treat every situation like it might be mine or someone elses last.

The article implies that the employee was familiar with this criminal before the incident (presumably from the news).

 

[sao123]

The world needs 90% more John McClain and about 90% less of the people in this thread.

Corporate policies and laws of passivism are weak and need to go.

Criminals need to fear that they will be shot every time they commit a crime, every victim is armed and ready.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

In this case yes, because if you work there, your dying (or being injured) during a robbery is expensive for the company and just the situation they want to avoid. If you are a rational individual, this is also the situation you want to avoid. If you work at a store, and it is robbed, you've lost nothing. You may have PTSD, and the company will pay for therapy, but at least you're alive. Statistically, compliance gives you the highest survival rate, and unless you're a psychologist capable of rationally determining if the robber fits a profile that would suggest an intent to injure you, you're better off playing statistics.

Why would you risk yourself for a faceless corporation? (I have some ideas, but none of them really paint a very rosy picture about your mental state if you would).

Bullshit. You act like corporations have been around forever. You are also assuming corporate policy is the single determining factor in reducing injury. Neither is true. Statistics hold true ONLY for the entire population. They are NOT applicable in individual circumstances.

My reasons for acting as I do and I suspect the employee's reason for acting as he did reflect personal choices. You don't do the right thing because you are forced to (unless you're a corporation), you do the right thing because you have pride, personal responsibility and, hate people who would rather prey on others than work for themselves.

I have an intense dislike for folks who think gaming the system is the smart thing to do. Whether it's the folks who spend all their time looking at loop holes, legal manipulation or, putting a hoody on and sticking up the local 7-11.

 

[Arkaign]

I support the employee for doing what he thought was right, and doing it in a manner that nobody got hurt by potential escalation.

I also support the store for what they did.

Anyone who says "fuck autozone" and thinks that O'Reilly, Napa, etc wouldn't do the EXACT same thing is kidding themselves.

It dovetails perfectly in that the vast majority of armed robbers (check the statistics) never fire their weapons or even attempt to harm anyone. Their entire motivation is money, not violence. Give them what they want, and they go away. If you have them dead to rights, I have no qualms about them being put down. But really, this is the police's duties, poor attempts by private citizens to intervene can often end with extreme tragedy.

 

[Ferzerp]

If I had a crappy retail job, and you endagered my life with your "personal choices", I would applaud your dismissal.

By all means, defend your house when you're the only one in it, but once you risk my life by escalating an already dangerous situation with your delusions of heroic grandeur, it's time for you to go away.

edit: The self-righteous superior attitude you're exhibiting sort of fits in with my earlier comment about having ideas about the mental state of someone who would defend a workplace. The other people aren't "passive" they're smart. There is a time and place to "stand up for" yourself. Defending any old cause because you happen to be present is just naive.

 

[triton2k3]

Do you REALLY believe corporations have your best interests at heart?

I never said they did. Do you allow the neighbor to juggle knives in your family room? Is this for liability reasons or your concern for your idiot neighbor? Everything's about money. It was a statement. Your are told not to do something. Whenever you get a job you sign a contract.... No matter how meanlingless the job can be.... And the fine print in that contract always says that you can not hold the company liable for things like this becuase they are not telling you to do it....So they have at least a little something to bring to the law suit. Courts usually rule away from this, but it's a cma (cover my ass) process.


You want to be a hero that's fine but you are writing your own pink slip and if you were the owner of a billion dollar corporations you would think the same way.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I support the employee for doing what he thought was right, and doing it in a manner that nobody got hurt by potential escalation.

I also support the store for what they did.

Anyone who says "fuck autozone" and thinks that O'Reilly, Napa, etc wouldn't do the EXACT same thing is kidding themselves.

It dovetails perfectly in that the vast majority of armed robbers (check the statistics) never fire their weapons or even attempt to harm anyone. Their entire motivation is money, not violence. Give them what they want, and they go away. If you have them dead to rights, I have no qualms about them being put down. But really, this is the police's duties, poor attempts by private citizens to intervene can often end with extreme tragedy.

Again, you are thinking about statistics. I defy anyone who when faced with this type of stressful situation to think about statistical probability. This is a trained response. The average joe is not trained yet, we are not inundated with armed robberies. Why?

Do you think the police actually provide a serious deterrent? Do you think the legal system prevents the majority of crimes by harsh penalties? Do you think the would be criminals decide to avoid possible CCW holders?

What keeps armed robbery from being a significant employment opportunity for the 47%? Do you REALLY believe in the basic goodness of humanity?

I have a huge problem with people who think all the distasteful functions of society should be assigned to the police or any other public office just so we can avoid taking personal responsibility.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I never said they did. Do you allow the neighbor to juggle knives in your family room? Is this for liability reasons or your concern for your idiot neighbor? Everything's about money. It was a statement. Your are told not to do something. Whenever you get a job you sign a contract.... No matter how meanlingless the job can be.... And the fine print in that contract always says that you can not hold the company liable for things like this becuase they are not telling you to do it....So they have at least a little something to bring to the law suit. Courts usually rule away from this, but it's a cma (cover my ass) process.


You want to be a hero that's fine but you are writing your own pink slip and if you were the owner of a billion dollar corporations you would think the same way.

No, I would not. Covering your ass is what you do when you're unwilling to take a stand. You like statistics. Do you think a billionaire has more to lose than a minimum wage earner? How many corporations or, their CEO's that owe millions, ever lose their homes, go hungry or, have their children taken by CPS?

 

[paperfist]

The man dubbed the “fake-beard bandit” has hit more than 30 businesses on the Peninsula.

Wow thanks to Devin McClean the fake-beard bandit is off the streets. Give the man an award.

 

[triton2k3]

No, I would not. Covering your ass is what you do when you're unwilling to take a stand. You like statistics. Do you think a billionaire has more to lose than a minimum wage earner? How many corporations or, their CEO's that owe millions, ever lose their homes, go hungry or, have their children taken by CPS?

What are you talking about? The stand corporations make is to do nothing. That's their decision and they make it clear. If you put the owner of the company in the same position as the worker he would not do anything. What does cps have to do with this?

I'm curious, I see the statement you are making but it's not relevant to the topic. Where is it coming from? Are you one of people unsuccessfully picketting wall street becuase you found out about a statistic that has no relation to wall street? You want to be pissed off about uneven wealth take it to Washington. There's a difference between a billionaire and a person that is part of the 47% or even the 99% and that lies in risk and exposure. Distritubution of wealth is good and that's a decision for the government, not some kid with a tent, a sign, and no ambition to make things happen in their own life.

The point is your told to do nothing... The owner would do nothing... And you decide to create a liability.... So you get fired

 

[Raizinman]

I'll bet he saw one too many Die Hard movies and wanted to be a hero with his new gun. You follow the store policy during times of hold ups. Likewise, it appeared he knew the MO of the bearded bandet. If that is so, then he knew he bearded bandet didn't kill people, but only robbed them. The store was not really in any danger if they complied with the robber. This guy should be fired. I will shop at Auto Zone again. Employees like this guy will get people killed.

 

[Nintendesert]

I love everyone defending corporate policy in this thread instead of supporting what is right and just, so are we also support corporate policy when it comes to paying CEOs crazy amounts of money and paying workers shit wages?

 

[HeXen]

Right and Just is quitting a job if you can't support their policy in the first place.
Plus risking yours or anyone's life for some inanimate objects, insured objects at that, is completely retarded

 

[Arkaign]

Again, you are thinking about statistics. I defy anyone who when faced with this type of stressful situation to think about statistical probability. This is a trained response. The average joe is not trained yet, we are not inundated with armed robberies. Why?

Do you think the police actually provide a serious deterrent? Do you think the legal system prevents the majority of crimes by harsh penalties? Do you think the would be criminals decide to avoid possible CCW holders?

What keeps armed robbery from being a significant employment opportunity for the 47%? Do you REALLY believe in the basic goodness of humanity?

I have a huge problem with people who think all the distasteful functions of society should be assigned to the police or any other public office just so we can avoid taking personal responsibility.

Eh? I'm an NRA member, and licensed CC in Texas. I think use of your firearm should be extremely judiciously applied. I don't have a significant problem with what the guy in the OP did, but also think it might have been adding risk to the situation. I wasn't there, it's a judgment call. Things can definitely go wrong either way.

The bandit described sounds like a simple coward who was only motivated by $, not violence. I'd hate to see any citizen hurt/killed trying to do the police's duty, when the guy was bound to get caught sooner or later. 30+ robberies and no injuries? I'm not sure this guy was Clyde Barrow by any stretch.

Sounds like you're asking philosophical rather than practical questions. What keeps armed robbery from being employment for the "47%"? Lotwut? 47% of America is something like 150 million people. Armed robbers are spectacularly rare in the big picture. Yes, most people AREN'T violent criminals, regardless of being poor.

Anyway, back to point, it's not an abdication of personal responsibility to make a judgment call either way in a case like this. I can tell you that if the store was crowded, and you couldn't get a clean shot, or if you had a lot of bystanders next to/partially in front of you, then drawing down on the guy would have been an unreasonably risky move. It sounds like that wasn't the case though. Dead to rights = why not? Good on him.

At the same time, Autozone and any other business has the right not to accept that as a policy. It's basically cheaper and safer to just give the perp the $ (small in the big picture anyway), and let them get caught. Armed robbers are overwhelmingly morons, and getting caught is nearly inevitable. I also don't have the highest degree of confidence in the average person's ability to handle their firearm properly. Go to the range and watch people handling their typical Glock 17, .357 revolver, etc. I'd feel confidence in maybe 30% of them in any similar situation. But if you can't draw and calmly put a cluster in center mass at the range you engage, you shouldn't draw. Any many just can't.

 

[triton2k3]

I love everyone defending corporate policy in this thread instead of supporting what is right and just, so are we also support corporate policy when it comes to paying CEOs crazy amounts of money and paying workers shit wages?

Corporate policy is right. Do not risk your life for the company.

It was a couragous thing he did but it was stupid.

Put yourself in this persons shoes.... Is there a point to where you say this has gotten real and it's not worth losing my life, if I let it let it happen everything will be fine.

How many armed robberies have you stopped for a shitty job?

 

[wirednuts]

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.

agreed. this makes me think autozone is now the easiest target out there, because everyone even the employees now are aware that they dont resist.

why go to a gas station with bulletproof windows when theres an autozone right down the street?

this is a prime example why zero tolerance policies are incredibly short sighted and stupid. but yet we come up with new ones everyday...

and anyone saying "what if he shot a customer?" well, then punish him for that if he did. but factor in the fact that he also saved lives. you know, go through a trial and all like youre supposed to- the exact opposite of zero tolerance.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

By the way, the guy is an Air Force veteran. So he wasn't some random minimum wage clerk for all his life.

 

[pontifex]

standard policy at pretty much every retail do not interfere, comply and let them have what they want and then call the police..
the are insured and don't want to risk getting sued by that employee or family if the robber shoots beats or kills them.

this is in the standard handbook when you are hired on at retail places.

fixed

 

[dmcowen674]

People don't get it including many in here.

I just went to a major nationwide jewelry store and a huge sign next to the front door stating it is a gun free zone.

They are advertising for would be thieves that no one will be able to defend themselves in that store or a concealed carry customer either.

So thugs know they can steal at will and take out the employees if they feel like it too.

 

[jlee]

Years ago I worked for a supermarket, and then a bank - same policies there. These stories all come up every now and again, sometimes involving guns and sometimes not. The employee gets fired, the bad guy gets caught (or runs away), the internet gets outraged for a while, and life goes on.

hahahahaaaaaa...gotta love all this macho crap and fake outrage and all these Rambo idiots whop on the internet are asll terminators......

In real life most of you would have crapped in your pants.....hahahaaaaa

Maybe.

Maybe not.

You never know who's on the internet.

 

[Dude111]

Man fsck Autozone! If that's how they take care of their own I'll never step foot in there again.

Ya i have heard of Walmart treating ppl like this also.... WHAT THE HELL??

Do they want to be ripped off?? ARE EMPLOYEES NOT SUPPOSED TO TRY AND HELP THEM??

Unreal.........

 

[JulesMaximus]

Bullshit. You act like corporations have been around forever. You are also assuming corporate policy is the single determining factor in reducing injury. Neither is true. Statistics hold true ONLY for the entire population. They are NOT applicable in individual circumstances.

My reasons for acting as I do and I suspect the employee's reason for acting as he did is because we are both hot-heads prone to rash behavior born out of some sense of enforcing justice. Honestly, I should have been a cop.

I have an intense dislike for folks who think gaming the system is the smart thing to do. Whether it's the folks who spend all their time looking at loop holes, legal manipulation or, putting a hoody on and sticking up the local 7-11.

I took the liberty of fixing your post for you.