Originally Posted By: Doog
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.
Maybe the kid should have call a psychologist for the robber so that the robber could work out his negative feelings about his social responsibility as a citizen. After 10 or 15 one hour sessions perhaps he could have been rehabilitated. After all the robber is the real victim here because no doubt he had a bad childhood and is really a good kid who is just acting out.
Or maybe the robber would have blown both of their brains out all over the office wall and walked out the door with the cash.
The kid stopped an armed robbery which in most states is a class 1 violent felony punishable by 5-25 years in the state pen. He is a hero. Autozone could have lightly punished him with a write up and warning and a raise. They are corporate weenies who deserve to have their nutz stepped on with steel toed shoes.
I will never set foot in an autozone until they apologize for being stupid.
Youre spewing a lot of hot air here.
Said it once, Ill say it again, this is ALL about the most probable way to get an outcome. It is NOT about what yYOU think is right, moral, or your way to clean the population of the misfits that exist. THis isnt about gun rights or gun control. Even if legal CCW was granted at will in all places, this topic would still come up. And I am HIGHLY pro-CCW and pro-2nd amendment. Its also not about some tongue in cheek feel-good commentary about who is the victim and being sorry for them, regardless of how silly that concept is in reality. Nope, its not about any of that. We could debate all that stuff in another thread, and Id bet we would be 100% in agreement. Its just not the issue here.
Why? Because the shoot-em-up types on here are just trigger happy without EVER giving a basis for the way to obtain the right outcome.
The duty of everyone, especially the gun carrying person, is to determine how to obtain the best outcome for the parties involved. That's it. Its not cleansing the population, its not teachning the thief a lesson by a holier-than-thou person. Its getting the clerks and patrons out of the situation in the safest mannr with the highest probability of success. Its also not because you have a gun in your belt, and have gone to the range a few times, that you think you can play FBI agent and hit the thief while missing the manager by two inches because youre a sharpshooter (Ill bet the average CCW holder couldnt group their shots at 25 yards with their carry weapon).
Nobody here has actually provided statistics yet But you can be pretty sure that all these multibillion dollar companies have considered it n an actuarial basis...
So it has nothing to do with how Joe shoot 'em up feels. Nor how their "moral superiority" justifies them being the entity to teach a lesson to anyone else. It is merely how to get the best outcome that is safest for the others. The thief? I be glad to see them dead. And in MANY other situations, immediate use of force might be the best approach. But as a blanket SOP for a store clerk, and basis of dealing with that situation, it is all about the most positive outcomes, that's it.
I see what the identified best approach is for these large companies, where they likely have more sneak-theft per day per store than an armed thief would ever get away with. $2000, heck, $20k is small change to the multibillion dollar corporation. Millions in lawsuits starts to hurt more.
