AutoZone Fires Worker Who Stopped Robbery

[KD0AXS]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
After reading this I will never shop at AutoZone again.

These companies are just outrageous with their unreasonable expectations.


And where exactly do you plan to shop then? Most any other store will have the same policy.

 

[JimPghPA]

BTW, the local pizza shop was robbed twice within the last thirty days. The last time being yesterday. As I drove past that shop today one of the local police cars was parked in the seldom used section of that shops parking lot. Sure that shop probably will not be robbed as long as the manned police car is there, but sooner or later there will be requirements where that car can no longer stay there. And after the police no longer are staying there sooner or later it will be robbed again.

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

My dad use to say don't ever give a bum money because you don't know if he will spend it on food or booze. So I use to carry a $5 McDonnalds gift card to give anyone begging. But now days, I will not converse, or stop to face anyone begging, because you never know if they may be looking for an opportunity to pull out a counselled weapon be it a gun or a knife, and you never know that if they were to try something that they may still harm someone even if they get all that person has.

Last week a small car pulled into a local grocery store parking lot and a man in a suit got out and popped the hood. As I walked by to go from my car into the store he asked if I had any oil with me. He said that he and his wife were traveling ministers and he only had three dollars on him and that they had hit something that came off of a truck and their vehicle was now leaking oil. The front of his car did look scuffed up and the air dam on the front was hanging down disconnected on one side. I was not about to show him where i carried my cash, and just kept my hand on the top of trigger of one of the less than two years old extra large can of Whoop-As(censored) mace that I carry in my pockets, and said NO I am sorry sir I can't help you, I suggest you contact the local church, and I walked away.

I did not know that person form Adam, and there was something fishy about the whole thing, including the suit he wore and the way he drove up and popped that hood, like he had done this before. I have helped out strangers who were stranded before several times, but you have to cover your assets first, and then if it is safe help out anyone in need.

Later I saw him on his cell phone still standing in front of that car.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
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.



So Im still waiting for the statistics on this. I dont have a bias one way or another, my intent is to protect people with the best possible outcome. Lots of people wanting to play john Wayne and shoot em up because they think it is their calling.

Again, where is the data that indicates the statistics of outcome? Everyone is right in saying that these things happen and people get shot. Im not denying that. But the intent is to obtain the best outcome for the people. Of the thousands of deaths per year, and even more robberies, there surely is data.

Everyone talks tough, but it sint clear that anyone knows what the statistically significant approach to obtainin the best outcome is. Sounds like too many are trigger happy.

But citizen hero shoots, misses, and hits someone else... then what? Talking tough without a LOT of training (and then the probability of success is still fairly low) is worthless. I doubt that many of the shoot em up crowd on herehave the training required to place two shots where needed to get the right outcome in a high probability of success under most cases.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: chevyboy14
this guy runs off and hurts my family well needless to say i am not going to be happy.


So when you misplace a shot and hit my son sitting in the car in the parking lot, how am I going to feel. Do I get the same recourse against you?

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

So Im still waiting for the statistics on this. .


It's hard to quantify this fact because the trend I mention is pretty recent, less than a half a decade or so old. Before this time I would agree that it was best for the store employee to follow the instructions of the criminal and cooperate.

Today things have changed, all you need to do is look at the hundreds or more news stories where the employee did as the criminal thug asked and was then shot anyhow because like I said the thief doesn't want a live witness to testify against them.

This isn't about a statistic it is about the cold hard reality of our country today.

I say if and when possible when an armed thief (knives, baseball bat, gun, ect) attemps to rob a store employee a gun should be at the ready and an attempt should be made to shoot and kill the perp. Everytime.

If this was SOP, you would see these robberies plummet to just about nothing in short order.

 

[PandaBear]

I have read just the same amount of news that people get shot after giving the robber stuff vs resisting them. But you also have to see that unless you are trained to hit and not miss, you can very well hit a bystander instead of the robbers, or hit the robbers and not kill him and they start hitting back.

What is the more likely outcome? I'd still say for most robbers giving them what they want is better than resisting and hitting them, especially if you are not military or law enforcement trained.

Now if they have a CPR like certification system and allow some employee to carry guns (as in the same as hiring a security guard), that's a different story. I'd not trust someone bringing guns to work and use "it might stop a robbery" as an excuse.

And regarding to calling the police, it is about after the fact and let the cops scan for prints and security photos and see if they know the guy.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

So Im still waiting for the statistics on this. .


It's hard to quantify this fact because the trend I mention is pretty recent, less than a half a decade or so old. Before this time I would agree that it was best for the store employee to follow the instructions of the criminal and cooperate.



I dont doubt you, but the half decade surely included thousands of reportable events across the country. That is still statistically significant. Youre saying that nobody has analyzed this? I see yearly crime statistics put out...

 

[antiqueshell]

The bottom line is that by store employees being instructed to
be cooperative and give the criminal what he demands it simply INCREASES (AND ENCOURAGES) thefts like this. Which means as the economy gets worse and more desperate people are out there you will literally have "packs" of thieves barging into even MORE stores and more innocent people will be murdered, cooperative or not.

 

[Dakota1820]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: chevyboy14
this guy runs off and hurts my family well needless to say i am not going to be happy.


So when you misplace a shot and hit my son sitting in the car in the parking lot, how am I going to feel. Do I get the same recourse against you?


there is several people who are better suited without guns. i agree but believe me i would shoot him. i actually do have firearm training. i do agree some wanna be john wayne probably shouldn't assist . but if you have the proper training i dont see a problem. also what you just said it was a lot of people try to do what ifs.... yes things like that happen but its slim. they're what if's i mean i could miss the robber and hit a aerosol can full of you name it cause an explosion and with all the other chemicals in the building and grenade the whole place its all about how much you want to stretch stuff. heck i could walk outside my home and get hit by a flying object and die but its not likely. and if you were in the parking lot and there is a robber i would hop you had a gum to protect your family. if not you could be in a very poor situation.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: chevyboy14
i mean i could miss the robber and hit a aerosol can full of you name it cause an explosion


Not unless you were firing tracers!

Stop with the movie watching, put on some safety glasses, go plinking at the dump and see what happens when you hit a can of starting fluid. Pssssssssss....

 

[Cutehumor]

Pretty much all businesses have a no gun policy on their premises. A male nurse car got broken into at the garage parking lot. He called the cops. The hospital found out he had a gun in the garage parking lot on hospital property. He was fired. No guns allowed on work premises even in the garage parking lot paid by the hospital. I'm sure everyone knows this right? don't bring your concealed gun to work, you'll get fired if anyone finds out even if you are protecting someone or yourself. sorry, businesses don't want a shootout in their stores.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Ah, the voice of reason!

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

Because they're arguing from fear, not facts.

 

[d00df00d]

Also, a note on Switzerland: Yes, most citizens have guns... but no one is allowed to carry in public. Food for thought.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Ah, the voice of reason!

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

Because they're arguing from fear, not facts.


Not fear, but understanding human nature..of the criminal mind.

The less resistance you give these thugs the MORE you ENCOURAGE them to prey upon innocents.
These creatures are "predatory animals" . Except because they are human as well, they will kill for future benefit, (again no one alive to testify against them)

In fact by enforcing this policy businesses are only going to INCREASE the number of potential injuries and deaths in the LONG RUN.

 

[HM12460]

Only comment I got is "up yours autozone" This young man probably had no concern with the store's money, but was concerned for his co-worker. He absolutely should not be fired. This is yet another example of what is wrong with corporate America. I hope the young man in this case can somehow find a reason for suing the stuffings out of autozone.

 

[JHZR2]

So somehow suing the stuffings out of a company ISNT a glimpse of what is wrong with America???!?

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Ah, the voice of reason!

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

Because they're arguing from fear, not facts.


Not fear, but understanding human nature..of the criminal mind.

The less resistance you give these thugs the MORE you ENCOURAGE them to prey upon innocents.
These creatures are "predatory animals" . Except because they are human as well, they will kill for future benefit, (again no one alive to testify against them)

In fact by enforcing this policy businesses are only going to INCREASE the number of potential injuries and deaths in the LONG RUN.

How do you know what you claim to know about "the criminal mind" and the long-term effects of "this policy?" Just curious.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

So Im still waiting for the statistics on this. .


It's hard to quantify this fact because the trend I mention is pretty recent, less than a half a decade or so old. Before this time I would agree that it was best for the store employee to follow the instructions of the criminal and cooperate.



I dont doubt you, but the half decade surely included thousands of reportable events across the country. That is still statistically significant. Youre saying that nobody has analyzed this? I see yearly crime statistics put out...


Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

The gist of it is that the more guns in the citizens' hands, the less crime there is. Criminals are not stupid - if they think you are carrying or may be carrying they will simply move on. It's also been coorborated that cities with tight gun laws (NY, DC, Chicago) have had higher crime rates with guns than places without.

It's also been noted in many cases that the perpetrators will most likely kill you after you comply because they don't want witnesses.

I for one am glad I left NJ and came to a more gun friendly state here in PA. It's the way it should be - if you pass a background check you can easily legally own a firearm. If you can pass a slightly more stringent background check you can concealed carry said firearm. Open carry is legal as long as you can own a gun. It's the way it should be.

 

[JHZR2]

But you are talking two different points. One is the gun laws of a state or country. I don't deny that our 2nd amendment rights, and ability to carry, if physically and mentally competent and trained, should not be impeded.

But this is an entirely different subject than the right method to avoid death during a robbery, which isn't necessarily to increase the tension by introducing another firearm into the situation. Again the question isn't of what you think is "right", or immoral, or how to use vigilante justice to thin the dis functional population. It is how to end the situation with the greatest chance of no loss of life to the clerks or patrons.

End of the day, it is far less risky for a multibillion dollar corporation to lose $2000 in cash than loss of life of its clerks or patrons.

If the clerk was going to protect, and truly thought the manager was in imminent danger of being fired upon, the other guy should have taken the shot at the first chance instead of playing movie cop and telling the thief to freeze.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2


If the clerk was going to protect, and truly thought the manager was in imminent danger of being fired upon, the other guy should have taken the shot at the first chance instead of playing movie cop and telling the thief to freeze.


Oh I agree completely, the clerk should have shot and killed that thug as soon as he had the chance.

In most professional circles the thought is--
If you are going to draw a gun, you shoot to kill the subject you don't try and wound them nor do you try and make them run or give up.