AutoZone Fires Worker Who Stopped Robbery

[djb]

I see analogy between this situation, and the attitude about plane hijacking before 9/11. The attitude before was "the plane is worth too much money, just take the ride to Cuba". Since 9/11, hijackings have become vanishingly rare (zero?). Not because of the TSA, but because passengers and crew won't sit back and let it happen.

The corporate policy here is a classic example of short-view economics. It seems cheaper for each incident, but encourages hold-up robbery in the long run. And when there is a disaster, the blame and cost doesn't go back to the person that implemented the short-sighted policy.

 

[JimPghPA]

Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Many businesses have a strict ban on weapons.Knives,guns..etc.I guess the idea is if the weapon is not within someone's grasp,it cannot be used against a fellow employee/boss or even customer.Why play the hero anyway? Would AZ or any other business really stand by an employee thru any problem? Why should an employee risk their own life for an unthankful conglomerate? Remember Wal Mart taking out insurance in case an employee drops dead? Thats thinking of themselves,not the worker.Loyalty only goes so far.


One reason to take out the intruder is that there is no guarantee that the robber will not shoot someone even if the employees give him/her/them everything they want. There are people in graves who were shot by robbers even though the robbers were not being denied what they asked for.

 

[danthaman1980]

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.


Nobody can verify for 100% certainty whether or not the manager would have been shot - but there is 100% certainty that the thief was threatening the manager's life, and the fact is that the employee stopped the threat. And hooray, nobody got hurt! Yet the guy who did the right thing got punished and the guy who broke the law got away.

 

[kb01]

My usual response in these situation is that it isn't worth losing one's life over "stuff".

However, in this exact situation, with an armed robber, the employee was defending the life of his coworker. As soon as the robber pointed a loaded firearm at a human being, he turned into a potential killer.

All of the information points to the employee making a rational decision to intervene in the hold up.

I truly hate no tolerance policies that don't take into account context or exact circumstances.

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: JimPghPA



One reason to take out the intruder is that there is no guarantee that the robber will not shoot someone even if the employees give him/her/them everything they want. There are people in graves who were shot by robbers even though the robbers were not being denied what they asked for.


This.

You never know what someone with a weapon is capable of. We had the same policy at Dunkin Donuts when I worked there in high school. If you tried to stop a robbery, even if you were successful and nobody gets hurt you will be fired. I understand them not wanting liability, but if a guy comes in and threatens me and my fellow coworkers, who were often female, then I would rather lose my job then have one of them get shot or raped.

The company was under the idea that we were supposed to sit there and watch/allow the situation to occur, which is extremely selfish of them. I wonder what they would have done if a robber came in one night (we were dead at night and nobody was around) and took money and raped one of my coworkers while the other employees were forced to watch. Getting fired or not, I'd rather do something than watch that happen.

 

[fisher83]

I agree that the robber might have shot the guy anyway even if he got the money. That happens all the time. I would have done the same thing the employee did. There is a point where a company needs to say forget the policy, forget the money, this guy potentially saved a life! There was a similar situation awhile back where a lifeguard was fired for saving a life. Blindly following policy regardless of the situation is stupid. In my opinion the only thing the guy did wrong was not shoot the guy.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: JimPghPA


One reason to take out the intruder is that there is no guarantee that the robber will not shoot someone even if the employees give him/her/them everything they want. There are people in graves who were shot by robbers even though the robbers were not being denied what they asked for.


So this relates back to my last post. For all the data that we gather as a society, where is the citable data that indicates that you have >50% chance of being shot during an armed robbery?

I'll bet it is a far lower chance, which translates to the fact that most criminals that have guns are there to grab and leave, not kill people. Adding another firearm to the situation may well increase the complexity of the situation and escalate it. Now this has nothing to do with if CCW is right or wrong, and I'd crime is lower amongst an armed population. Some will still occur, so it's all about the psychology of the situation, and intent on part of the thief to use deadly force (which I don't deny they will).

I'm not trying to humanize or play apologetics for the thief; but I'll bet that the means of response is calculated based upon data, not people trying to play hero.

 

[danthaman1980]

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA



One reason to take out the intruder is that there is no guarantee that the robber will not shoot someone even if the employees give him/her/them everything they want. There are people in graves who were shot by robbers even though the robbers were not being denied what they asked for.


This.

You never know what someone with a weapon is capable of. We had the same policy at Dunkin Donuts when I worked there in high school. If you tried to stop a robbery, even if you were successful and nobody gets hurt you will be fired. I understand them not wanting liability, but if a guy comes in and threatens me and my fellow coworkers, who were often female, then I would rather lose my job then have one of them get shot or raped.

The company was under the idea that we were supposed to sit there and watch/allow the situation to occur, which is extremely selfish of them. I wonder what they would have done if a robber came in one night (we were dead at night and nobody was around) and took money and raped one of my coworkers while the other employees were forced to watch. Getting fired or not, I'd rather do something than watch that happen.


I agree - having no duty to respond to a threat is vastly different than being fired for responding to a threat.

Reminds me of another past experience - just after college I worked at a small chemical manufacturer, in the QC lab. During the monthly safety meetings they always made it very clear we had no duty to respond to a fire, that we should sound the fire alarm and evacuate instead of fighting a fire.
Well, about a year into my employment I (accidentally) started a fire in a fume hood while doing a QC procedure that required me to boil anhydrous isopropyl alcohol. So I grabbed the fire extinguisher and put it out! My boss in the next office must have heard the commotion, because he walked in seconds after I put out the fire, and saw me me with the fire extinguisher in my hands.
He asked me what happened, I told him, he asked if I was OK, I said yes. That was the end of it. No report, no stern words, no problems.

 

[Roadkingnc]

I carry, better to be job hunting than dead

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Businesses put a dollar value on human life. So if a human life is worth, say, $6M dollars, and the petty cash at Autozone is $2000, Im not so sure it is bad corporate policy to just let the thief run off with it. This scenario was only at closing time... But imagine if the firefight ended up with the manager dead? What about both employees dead? What if there was a customer in the store or in the parking lot?

Its a horrible dual-edged sword. Private citizen justice is great when it works, but if it backfires, its doubly bad.

Hate to take sides against a hero, but I have to agree here.

What a catch-22...

 

[demarpaint]

Too bad for the guy losing is job. Having said that pigs would fly before I risk my life for a $10/hr job, or some A-hole that's going to fire me because he's anti-gun or the company is anti-gun. Now if I felt my life, or the life of a loved one was in danger it's another story.

 

[bigjl]

Same kind of no thinking no consideration policies have ruined the public sector in the UK over the last five or six years.

Hope the bloke get offered another, better on the back of this.

Perhaps a job with the Police/Sheriffs Office.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Too bad for the guy losing is job. Having said that pigs would fly before I risk my life for a $10/hr job, or some A-hole that's going to fire me because he's anti-gun or the company is anti-gun. Now if I felt my life, or the life of a loved one was in danger it's another story.


His boss publicly thanked him and said it was a shame that he was fired.

 

[Fleetmon]

I wrote AZ and told them how I felt about their corporate policy and my respect for Mr. McLean who acted when he should have. The US needs a LOT more people like him! The Sheriff's statement says it all....he's disappointed!

I only spend $4k-5k a year at AZ and they won't miss one cent of my money but if everyone got together.......

Some people may say it's foolish to react in this manner but I do the same thing to Target (you can't even find a toy gun in my area Targets). Stick together folks....this is probably just the beginning and four years is a long time. Keep what you got and hoard the rest!

 

[Kruse]

While I don't agree with what corporate did in this case, they do it to prevent a possible lawsuit in the future.
Let's just say, theoretically, that this hero would have a gun accident in the parking lot or in the store several years from now, for any reason whatsoever. And in this incident, a customer was injured or killed. The victim's lawyers will come back and convince the jury that Autozone KNEW that this guy was some gun-crazed, trigger-happy wacko and they condoned his actions by keeping him on the payroll after this robbery attempt. The "proof" that he was trigger-happy was that he was so quick to pull out a gun during this last robbery incident. (Hey, a jury would believe it, and they would award millions of dollars)
Another example of lawyers flushing this country down the toilet.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Too bad for the guy losing is job. Having said that pigs would fly before I risk my life for a $10/hr job, or some A-hole that's going to fire me because he's anti-gun or the company is anti-gun. Now if I felt my life, or the life of a loved one was in danger it's another story.


His boss publicly thanked him and said it was a shame that he was fired.


Yes he did, and the guy still got the boot.

 

[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.

Statistically speaking, you are also far less likely to get other bystander killed if both you and the arm robber are not in a stand off, regardless of you shooting or he shooting and miss.

Now if the intruders are looking for something else (i.e. sexual assault), then of course I'd rather lose my job and protect a coworker or customer by defending him or her. The company policy ends with termination, not getting you into a jail just because you defend the innocent.

But like JHZR2 said, it is not worth losing a life or getting injured over "stuff", and it is the cops' duty to pursue armed robbers.

 

[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.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
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.


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.

 

[fusion0389]

Best Buy is like that too, they will can you immediately if you so much as think about touching someone who is stealing something regardless of whether or not they have a weapon. IMO the legal system is more to blame for this than businesses. Management is looking out for the best interest of keeping the company free from lawsuits that could put the company out of business. If the legal system wasn't as screwed up as it is with sleazy lawyers and the like I think more businesses would be inclined to honor people like Devin McLean.