AutoZone Fires Worker Who Stopped Robbery

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
Call the police???? Are you serious? It reminds me of the old advertisement..."when seconds count, help is only minutes away."

I am certainly not bashing the police (my dad was a career MP, my son is a deputy sheriff, and I'm a D.O.T. safety & security specialist) but you have to be realistic....the robber is only going to be in the store a few minutes if that.

The manager gets shot more than you probably realize. Also, you don't "scare" with a gun, you fire....the criminal is fortunate that Mr. McLean didn't fire upon entering. You are really taking a big chance counting on the criminal not shooting you. I think some of you watch too much tv.



This.

A gas station two towns over had an armed robbery late at night. The clerk did everything he could to give the guy anything he wanted. He gave him the money in the drawer, lottery tickets, etc and promised not to call the cops. The robber still shot him and the guy died on the scene.
 
Seems like there are ways Autozone corporate could thank him even if there are legal reasons why they would have to fire him. Perhaps help him get into a new job, or move him into a non customer-facing role within Autozone.
 
I think too many of you are not seeing it from the company's point of view, which is really the only one that matters.

AutoZone is insured against this type of crime. They do not want their $10/hr employees risking their lives or escalating a bad situation just to protect AutoZone property. The 'no guns at work' policy is there for exactly that reason. They do not want anyone playing hero. They do not want to be on the news saying someone was killed in one of their stores, period. If someone wants to rob them, give 'em what they want, get them out, and call the police. That's not cowardly or anti-gun or anything like that, that's SMART.

Go ahead and handle a B&E in your own home any way you'd like, but not on company property on company time.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
OK, so like I asked, please cite FBI or otherwise, who track these things, to show that your chance of being shot is greater than 50% during an armed robbery, and show the results when another person is armed or not armed.



In reality this isnt about being selfless, its about taking the right approach to statistically have the best outcome, liability or anything else aside.

If playing John Wayne has a statistically poorer result, its not a matter of principle or heroism, its a matter of doing what is best with the data that is known, to get the best outcome.

Every citizen hero has that duty, and those statistics should be mandatory to be memorized and regurgitated at any request for those choosing to carry.

And again, this isnt an attack at CCW or the arming of the population. I truly believe that CCW should be legally offered to those who are mentally competent to carry, in any state or place, and am against interfering with 2nd amendment rights. I have no doubt that an armed populatiuon is a safer one (e.g. Switzerland), that is not the question here. The duty of those taking part is to get the best outcome, NOT to kill someone.

Ah, the voice of reason!

I have no idea why so many aren't getting this.
 
I do not have any specific data to quote, but I would take most bets that >%50 of the people who do robberies are using some form of illegle drug(s). And you can not count on anyone who is using illegle drug(s) to act rationally regarding respecting others lives.

One of the robberies that comes to mind is that of a successful black man who immigrated from a country with extremely terrible human rights violations to say the least. Many of the people he left behind were killed when their entire village was gunned down. A young woman he knew had taken shelter somewhere and after he made some money here he paid for her to come here. They married, he ran a high end used clothing store, worked hard, and they had a young child. One of the customers was hanging out with his friends and they were looking for some place to rob. He suggested the high end used clothing store. One of the first to enter said he meant to fire a round into the ceiling to let the employees know the was serious about the robbery, as he pulled the trigger the gun was not pointing up, and the first shot went through the heart of the owner.

So please don't suggest that cooperation is the end all and beat all only way to go regarding how to respond to a robbery. It just ain't so.
 
Isn't the real issue here whether or not he should be considered an employee at the time he brought the firearm in? If the firearm was correctly licensed is he different than if a customer had pulled it out on the robber? If he (as someone jokingly pointed out) clocked out first, would it have been different? Was he on the clock at all?
 
Seasoned robbers rarely shoot...it's the young ones you have to be wary of. Statistics mean nothing....I read the paper and watch the news for my area(s) and I see....if you think you're just going to hand over the money and watch the robber walk out the door in Baltimore...it may very well be the last sight you see. Um, parts of York Pa too (although Pa does have provisions for carrying)....Detroit....Miami....Los Angeles....Houston....should I continue?

I'm not at all in favor of killing anyone...my focus if involved would be to STOP them. No matter what it takes!
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

So you can verify that the manager would 100% have been shot, had this guy not come to the rescue?

Ill bet the statistics say otherwise. Give the guy the $2000 in cash, let him leave, and have far less of a headache.

That's my only real problem. Did the guy do the right thing? I guess so, but he was protecting property that wasnt his, against that property owner's wishes.

Was firing too severe? Definitely.


This one happened probably less than 5 miles from my house:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.s...t_river_default

4 punk kids killed the lady. (and, IMHO should face a firing squad.)

It's becoming increasingly common for them to kill you after you give them what they want. So there's a good chance one or both would get shot.

If someone pulls a gun on you it is assumed that they are going to use it to kill or harm you. You are within your rights to defend yourself no matter what. If you kill the perpetrator, "Oh Well". Killing someone is a tough decision and should never be taken lightly but if they confront you with a deadly weapon that alone shows their intent to harm or kill you.

And the more people carry the less crime there is. That is a proven fact. It's no wonder places with tough or no carry laws (NY, Chicago, NJ, IL, Washington DC) have some of the highest violent crime rates in the USA.
 
Last edited:
Every company I ever worked for had a no weapons policy on their property. Knives, firearms, nunchukas, etc.

And yes, they can ask you to leave if a customer walks in with a weapon. It is private property. Then there's always the hassle if someone calls the cops if someone sees you with a gun.

Better to carry concealed.

And when I last worked at one of those 24/7 stores, after the hold up, they sent me a plant. A dead one at that. The company has very strick rules. No weapons. Period.
 
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
I think too many of you are not seeing it from the company's point of view, which is really the only one that matters.

AutoZone is insured against this type of crime. They do not want their $10/hr employees risking their lives or escalating a bad situation just to protect AutoZone property. The 'no guns at work' policy is there for exactly that reason. They do not want anyone playing hero. They do not want to be on the news saying someone was killed in one of their stores, period. If someone wants to rob them, give 'em what they want, get them out, and call the police. t's not cowardly or anti-gun or anything like that, that's SMART.

Go ahead and handle a B&E in your own home any way you'd like, but not on company property on company time.


This is exactly what it's about. It's risk management, not being anti-guns. It's not worth the risk of someone getting injured or killed over some money or merchandise. Most retail stores, banks, etc have the same policies that prohibit intervening in a robbery, whether there are weapons involved or not. Safety is their number one concern. Here in MN, most businesses have "guns are prohibited on these premises" signs, not because they are afraid of the person that's legally carrying, but because they don't want anyone escalating the situation if there does happen to be an incident.

Then there's the (unfortunate) fact that if the robber ends up being injured or killed, the company will find itself in a lawsuit because he/shevwas harmed by said company's employees.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
OK, so like I asked, please cite FBI or otherwise, who track these things, to show that your chance of being shot is greater than 50% during an armed robbery, and show the results when another person is armed or not armed.



In reality this isnt about being selfless, its about taking the right approach to statistically have the best outcome, liability or anything else aside.

If playing John Wayne has a statistically poorer result, its not a matter of principle or heroism, its a matter of doing what is best with the data that is known, to get the best outcome.

Every citizen hero has that duty, and those statistics should be mandatory to be memorized and regurgitated at any request for those choosing to carry.

And again, this isnt an attack at CCW or the arming of the population. I truly believe that CCW should be legally offered to those who are mentally competent to carry, in any state or place, and am against interfering with 2nd amendment rights. I have no doubt that an armed populatiuon is a safer one (e.g. Switzerland), that is not the question here. The duty of those taking part is to get the best outcome, NOT to kill someone.

Ah, the voice of reason!

I have no idea why so many aren't getting this.


I disagree. The duty of anyone in the store carrying and not part of the robbery (committing the robbery) is if they can, to see that everyone who is not part of the robbery (committing the robbery) is not harmed. But all individuals involved in the robbery (committing the robbery) have NO right to any protection from harm. And if an armed citizen be it a customer or an employee takes out armed robber(s) they have responded properly to protect innocent people because there is NO iron clad grantee that any armed robber will not fire on someone before they leave.

And if you want to talk statistics if someone brakes into you house and they are armed and you have a good shot to end the situation you are better of to take them out, instead of trying to talk.

Even the house owner with a gun against the bungler with a knife is in grave danger from being shot with their own gun or killed by the knife if they talk instead of fire.
 
Last edited:
this is another great example of ineffective laws that are nothing more than political correctness. i agree with the fact that yes most places have a policy where letting people steal is their option. but if i was there and you were threatening people with a gun and i could do something to stop it i would. its not about the job or the money its about protecting your fellow employees and yourself. we need more people who are willing to stand up and fight when needed. everyone is to lazy or afraid they could get in trouble if the act. i watched a video several months ago where these kids were beating an old man who was a retired army veteran. they were beating him kicking him and people just walked on by and ignored it. that's how people are now afraid to take action because they could be punished. its the same thing if someone breaks in your house. what do you do? what can you legally do? and what are you willing to do? if you break in to my house you best come in understanding you will not make it out alive. i wont hesitate for a second. its my obligation to protect my family. its all of our obligations to look out for people . and protect and help one another. what the guy did was obviously the right thing to do in this case. he shouldn't be punished. he should be rewarded. our backward society could never figure something that complex out though.
 
Im seeing lots of speculation without statistics.

Violent crime statistics exist, why not do some number crunching?
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: danthaman1980
but in the article he makes it clear that he was acting to protect his coworker/friend from the bandit.


So you can verify that the manager would 100% have been shot, had this guy not come to the rescue?

Ill bet the statistics say otherwise. Give the guy the $2000 in cash, let him leave, and have far less of a headache.

That's my only real problem. Did the guy do the right thing? I guess so, but he was protecting property that wasnt his, against that property owner's wishes.

Was firing too severe? Definitely.


firing to severe?? if it was to severe billy bad butt shouldn't have been in there threatening people with a gun. its common sense. you wave a gun to the wrong guy you get shot. they store worker should have killed the guy dead. and the reason i feel like that is if the guy runs off after doing what he did. who is to say he wont go try to rob someone else. heck maybe it'll be your neighbors house or your house. maybe it is your sister or daughter he robs, maybe he rapes her who knows he is obviously a screw up with a power trip. instead of saying shooting him would have been to severe. maybe we should have shot him twice that would have solved the problem forever. this guy is a scum bag and taking him out is the perfect medicine for the situation. and we can spout statistical data all we like but if you are the worker and you have a gun and dont use it and this guy runs off and hurts my family well needless to say i am not going to be happy. i know what you are saying but if there is a valid opportunity to take these people off the streets and we can do it legally i think we should. shooting him in self defense is legal. a lot of things can be looked at statistically but i do not think taking chances because statistics say a certain thing is very smart because that one time you are wrong you'll feel pretty bad.
 
Did you see the one about the young newly widowed woman with a child who was being stalked and she figured out that something was up because there were signs that someone had been in her house while she was gone.

Two men broke into her house, the first one entering had a knife, she had two guns and her baby. She killed the first one in with the knife, and later the second one who was still outside when this all went down was caught by the police.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would law abiding citizens have any less right to defend themselves and other innocent citizens just because they happen to be on a property where retail sales are conducted.
 
the problem all boils down to the fact that if you kill the robber you get sued if you let him live he could hurt someone else or find something else to sue you over. and if anyone is injured the store gets sued for that as well. anyone see an issue? maybe to many laws? ect ect..
 
It ain't about protecting property, it is about protecting people, because you really do not know it the idiot(s) doing the robbery will shoot before they leave, even if they get the cash and or items they came to take.
 
And if the robber started shooting and killing the other employees he would ether be dead with them or blamed for not trying.
IMO he should have smoked that scum right there in the store. 2 right in the old bulb.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Statistically speaking, you are far more likely to stay alive if you do not resist an armed robber who only demand money or property than if you get your gun out trying to scare him away.


This may have been true a decade or more ago but today from what I have been seeing and reading about in the news, it is NOT the case today.

Increasingly store employees that do EXACTLY as they are instructed by the criminal are being shot and KILLED immediately after because the thugs don't want anyone left that can clearly identify them on a witness stand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave Hess
  • Locked
Volkswagen’s Choice: Fire Union Workers and Cut Costs, or Go Bankrupt
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
M56959
S
Composite Oil Pans
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
4WD
y_p_w
The Dragon Bravo Fire destroys the Grand Canyon Lodge
Replies
7
Views
229
RedSpider
T
Autozone ftw!
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
The motor guy
y_p_w
Two aircraft maintenance workers dead after tire explodes
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
y_p_w
Back
Top Bottom