AutoZone Fires Worker Who Stopped Robbery

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
Well, here in MN all they have to do is put up one of these signs and it's illegal to carry a firearm on the property even if you have a CCW permit.

Which to me is even dumber.

Tempest put up the numbers above. Something like 200k guns stolen per year.

If we go off the mantra that if you make it criminal to have guns, then only criminals have guns... Well where are the criminals getting them from even today? The gun owners, of course.

So there is a lot of responsibility that is obviously NOT being maintained on part of those exercising their 2nd amendment right. Which to me is disgusting, as everyone on here wants to talk about gun rights, but then we have all these enablers that when robbed put a TON of guns into the thieves hands. These guns then are used for crimes, and that gives the anti-gun lobby even more fodder to justify restricting guns... which in the end the pro-gun folks jest at, without recognizing that it is their fault for not properly securing their guns! The pro gun folks are shooting themselves in the foot, so to speak.

And Id imagine that a prime way this happens is when people have guns, lock them in a glovebox of a car, and then the car gets robbed... Easy to do, happens all the time. Get a gun, some quarters, a GPS and leave.

IMO rules like this, AZ policy or statistics aside, make the population LESS safe becaue it increases the probability that the gun can be stolen.

Black Friday aside, and assuming that the gun owner is mentally stable and competent (big if), the gun is far better off being on their person.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
Well, here in MN all they have to do is put up one of these signs and it's illegal to carry a firearm on the property even if you have a CCW permit.


If Best Buy doesn't approve of the exercise of Second Amendment rights, then perhaps they should move all their U.S. stores up here to Canada, and they'd never have the issue. Of course, they'd give up huge numbers of customers, but they'd be able to live up to their corporate principles, right?

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: yonyon
Originally Posted By: PandaBear


Statistically speaking, insurance companies know their number more than average Joe, and when they ask you to do things certain way, statistically speaking they are right.


Are there available statistics taking into account who Mr. McLean is or what his abilities are or what training he has or how well functions in that sort of situation? Did anyone consult Google or Watson prioviding all information available at the time to come up with a valid scenario specific risk assessment?


So you suggest a company should have a wavering policy regarding to how to react to every situation by every possible personal in every district? That itself is not a policy, but no policy at all. Like I said, unless Autozone mandate all employee to go through armed security service training and qualification, they have to assume their employee to not know how to shoot a gun and how to defuse the situation safely when dealing with an armed robbery. However they did not, so they have to assume that it is safer to not escalate the situation with another possible firearm or resistance, and assume that most arm robber only wants valuable (which statistic is already provided by JHZR2).

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Neither my employer, nor anyone else, gets to dictate that I place my life in the hands of an armed stranger of unknown mental and emotional stability, regardless of the "odds".


So in other words you want to replace one risk with another greater risk???!? Great thinking!


I don't need you to put words in my mouth.

Hoping that someone threatening me with a gun won't kill me out of the goodness of their heart is unacceptable.

The value you place on your own life is your concern.


But you are placing other peoples' lives (customers and other employees) in YOUR hand, and you are dictating them to go through what YOU think is the best way to get out of the situation as safe as possible.

Doing so you are 1) assume that you can find a gun easily when needed, 2) you will not be overpowered and have the gun taken away from you by the robber (this happened before when a court police was overpowered and the gun taken out of her hand and used by a defendant to escape the court, and killed others when met with resistance to surrender their cars), 3) you will shoot accurately at the robber when needed and not a bystander (customers or other employees), and 4) the robber would be disabled enough that he would not fire back when hit, and 5) if the robber fire back he would not hit you or bystanders.

Like JHZR2 said, you are trading one risk for another, and you assume that what you trade for is a lower risk. However even if the trade is really for a lower risk you are making that decision for not only just you, but other people in the situation (bystanders) as well.

A police chief was on the radio recently and describe how difficult it is to shoot someone in hostile and dynamic situation and not miss, even when he was a pretty good shooter at the range himself, he still miss once in a while at a stationary target, let alone a moving human with a weapon and other people around.


You are part of the "nor anyone else" I referenced in my first post. Whatever causes your need to rationalize placing your life in the hands of an armed felon rather than fighting for your life is your problem. It doesn't interest me at all.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Whatever causes your need to rationalize placing your life in the hands of an armed felon rather than fighting for your life is your problem. It doesn't interest me at all.

But this isn't about submitting to an armed felon vs. fighting for your life. It's about whether you create an additional threat of violence when one already exists.

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Whatever causes your need to rationalize placing your life in the hands of an armed felon rather than fighting for your life is your problem. It doesn't interest me at all.

But this isn't about submitting to an armed felon vs. fighting for your life. It's about whether you create an additional threat of violence when one already exists.


You have reached the top of the threat scale if a felon is pointing a gun at you. No "additional threat of violence" is possible. In any event, your feelings on the matter won't cause me to be executed on my knees while begging for my life, so they don't make any difference to me.


Perhaps Col. Grossman can elucidate at the link below.

http://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
The issue here is that he violated the company's policy that prohibits the possession of weapons on company property.


I would suggest that a company wouldn't want to get into that fight. The Second Amendment doesn't have a lot of use if every privately owned public place is allowed to prohibit the exercise of that right.


A bar? Maybe. A parts store? Please....


But if they tell you ahead of time it is the businesses' right to fire you. A law only means that you will not be going to jail by having a gun or shooting it, but it doesn't force others (like businesses) to tolerate you bringing a gun there.

Many businesses do not allow guns on their premise because it makes their customers feel unease. It is the business owners or managers right to not welcome gun carriers into their places.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
You have reached the top of the threat scale if a felon is pointing a gun at you.

The felon was pointing the gun at the manager, who was unarmed. The other employee entered the situation with his gun. It wasn't an act of self-defense; it was an act of coming to the defense of someone else.

Again, obviously heroic. At the same time, it added variables to the situation.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
You have reached the top of the threat scale if a felon is pointing a gun at you. No "additional threat of violence" is possible.


No you have not reached the top. The threat initially is asymmetric. The felon uses the weapon to exert influence and strength to get their way so they can get what they want. Getting an item and leaving is the end game.

Add a second weapon to the scenario, and the felon then has added threat against themself; and if the scenario is notionally equal (two guns, not felon vs SWAT team), firing upon the other weapon-holder or utilizing the unarmed person for collateral to escape/as a shield is more probable. If the felon gets the cash and is able to leave, thats what they want. Not to have added risk of being shot or caught. What good is stealing money if youre shot or caught?

So there absolutely is additional threat of violence, as you just uped the ante to it being a two-way exchange. The threat is now symmetric and each has intent to use to get their way, which is in complete polar conflict.

Its a different situation to the home invasion wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of broken glass type of threat.

 

[SlipperyPete]

I can't believe I started to let myself get drawn in. There is no reason to debate this because I really don't care what you think.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
I can't believe I started to let myself get drawn in. There is no reason to debate this because I really don't care what you think.

It hasn't been entirely unproductive, has it? You've shared your views and given us all some grist for the mill. I'd say that's worth a lot.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
You have reached the top of the threat scale if a felon is pointing a gun at you. No "additional threat of violence" is possible.


No you have not reached the top. The threat initially is asymmetric. The felon uses the weapon to exert influence and strength to get their way so they can get what they want. Getting an item and leaving is the end game.


Well said.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
I can't believe I started to let myself get drawn in. There is no reason to debate this because I really don't care what you think.

It hasn't been entirely unproductive, has it? You've shared your views and given us all some grist for the mill. I'd say that's worth a lot.


Agree, as much as I agree on Autozone's policy of firing the employee and it is not a good idea to bring in another gun vs just giving them the valuable, it is still good to know what others think (heck, I could be wrong and am open to influence of others if they make sense).

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead.

Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number."

Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: "When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery -- from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing -- produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelde...ense/page/full/

Quote:
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Agree, as much as I agree on Autozone's policy of firing the employee and it is not a good idea to bring in another gun vs just giving them the valuable, it is still good to know what others think (heck, I could be wrong and am open to influence of others if they make sense).


It's good to discuss, even if I disagree with you.

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
You have reached the top of the threat scale if a felon is pointing a gun at you. No "additional threat of violence" is possible.


No you have not reached the top. The threat initially is asymmetric. The felon uses the weapon to exert influence and strength to get their way so they can get what they want. Getting an item and leaving is the end game.


Well said.


Was it? I think it sounds like sheep.

Let us analyze:

Quote:
The threat initially is asymmetric.


Translation: The felon has a gun you do not...

(I might agree "asymmetric threat" (LOL) is good if it is asymmetric my way, asymmetric the felons way = not good)

Quote:
The felon uses the weapon to exert influence and strength to get their way


Translation: as you have no weapon you are obliged to do as he/she ask

Quote:
so they can get what they want


Translation: they will get what they want because you cannot resist.

Quote:
Getting an item and leaving is the end game.


Translation: you hope. But what if the end game is getting the item and leaving no witnesses. Or Getting an item and your wife, daughter, son or another customer for a little entertainment later.

Quite frankly placing your fate in the hands of an armed felon is just plain stupid. I mean has not a guy pulling a strong arm robbery in an Auto Zone already proved he isn't making the best life choices, yet this entire premise depends on him acting in a rational way and just leaving when he gets what "he wants" which is assumed to be the money/product. Way too many assumptions there for my taste.

In addition I think that many of you are giving the corporate policies way too much credit for being altruistic, I submit again that they are much more selfish. The only thing they are worried about is being held culpable for the situation.

Now the things I do agree about is that AZ is perfectly within their rights to have and enforce such a policy.

But I'm perfectly within my rights to express my displeasure by taking my money elsewhere.

Many (if not most) companies have similar policies.

The only way to change such wrong headed policies is to hold them culpable for their decisions. The only real way for an individual to do that is to take your business elsewhere and let them know why.

 

[mcrn]

I will ban autozone now because of this. I am sure other companies would do this same but I know for sure autozone does.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder

Translation: you hope. But what if the end game is getting the item and leaving no witnesses. Or Getting an item and your wife, daughter, son or another customer for a little entertainment later.

Quite frankly placing your fate in the hands of an armed felon is just plain stupid. I mean has not a guy pulling a strong arm robbery in an Auto Zone already proved he isn't making the best life choices, yet this entire premise depends on him acting in a rational way and just leaving when he gets what "he wants" which is assumed to be the money/product. Way too many assumptions there for my taste.



Most crime that target establishment like these focus on ONE THING at a time. You either rob for cash and valuables, or you kidnap someone, or you vandalize and hurt someone, but not a combination of them because that increase the risk of them getting caught as it compound the amount of time to escape. Home invasion or off the street robberies are different.

Quote:
In addition I think that many of you are giving the corporate policies way too much credit for being altruistic, I submit again that they are much more selfish. The only thing they are worried about is being held culpable for the situation.

Now the things I do agree about is that AZ is perfectly within their rights to have and enforce such a policy.

But I'm perfectly within my rights to express my displeasure by taking my money elsewhere.

Many (if not most) companies have similar policies.

The only way to change such wrong headed policies is to hold them culpable for their decisions. The only real way for an individual to do that is to take your business elsewhere and let them know why.


These policies exist for a reason, and they exist because statistically they are right and have a lower risk of escalating the situations. Heck, even in other countries where lawsuits to businesses in robberies by standing injuries have similar policies of asking employees not to fight back and just surrender the valuables.

Regarding to whether the employee was being fired is fair. It isn't, but if you do not stick to a policy then others can claim that your policy isn't real and you get a lot of other things going on later, and yes that's strictly insurance liability. The right thing for Autozone to do in this case, IMO, is to give this guy a good lump sump payment so everyone will be happy and he would not be in a financial mess for this.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The right thing for Autozone to do in this case, IMO, is to give this guy a good lump sump payment so everyone will be happy and he would not be in a financial mess for this.

Agreed.

 

[Tdbo]

I fully understand the liability issues and the statistical analysis, and at some level agree with it.

However, the net result of it is empowered thugs, and the rights and safety of those patronizing and those working in the store are compromised. Every one of these situations is fluid and what if a crackhead with a gun comes in to rob this or any other store, gets spooked, and starts shooting. Does walking in a retail store mean you sign away your right to self defense?

That is not just a problem with Autozone, it is a problem with this country. Without getting political, the problem with gun laws is they only affect law abiding citizens. Thugs don't feel compelled to comply with legal standards.

I really like the Jewelry store where I bought my wife's engagement ring. Every person is buzzed in and every clerk packs. They receive continuous training and qualify with their weapons.

I make every effort to stay away from Autozone, anyway. Now I have another reason besides horrible parts and substandard service.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The right thing for Autozone to do in this case, IMO, is to give this guy a good lump sump payment so everyone will be happy and he would not be in a financial mess for this.

Why would they? Why should they? He broke company rules which are there for a reason. They aren't going to reward him for it.