HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Air Force Veteran foils r...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:09 PM

 

Air Force Veteran foils robbery.. Then fired for it.

http://guardianofvalor.com/autozone-fires-an-air-force-veteran-devin-mcclean-for-botching-robbery/

The title is goofy; if you ask me, the Veteran didn't 'botch' the robbery he stopped it. He is then fired because Autozone has a zero tolerance policy for employees having firearms in the store.

I waited for him to go up toward the front, I ran out of the restroom, ran out to my truck where I keep my own personal weapon, grabbed my weapon, came back into the store and confronted the guy, says McClean
."
More at link.

As a Veteran; I support this brave individual. Is termination over the top? I think so.

133 replies, 15434 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 133 replies Author Time Post
Reply Air Force Veteran foils robbery.. Then fired for it. (Original post)
letemrot Dec 2012 OP
Lasher Dec 2012 #1
letemrot Dec 2012 #3
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #5
KittyWampus Dec 2012 #85
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #98
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #2
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #4
letemrot Dec 2012 #6
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #7
letemrot Dec 2012 #8
jeff47 Dec 2012 #9
letemrot Dec 2012 #10
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #13
X_Digger Dec 2012 #14
jeff47 Dec 2012 #15
X_Digger Dec 2012 #16
jeff47 Dec 2012 #20
X_Digger Dec 2012 #31
jeff47 Dec 2012 #35
X_Digger Dec 2012 #36
jeff47 Dec 2012 #42
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #17
X_Digger Dec 2012 #19
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #12
letemrot Dec 2012 #18
jeff47 Dec 2012 #21
X_Digger Dec 2012 #30
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #38
sarisataka Dec 2012 #44
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #49
sarisataka Dec 2012 #55
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #108
sarisataka Dec 2012 #113
X_Digger Dec 2012 #46
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #51
X_Digger Dec 2012 #61
letemrot Dec 2012 #94
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #109
jeff47 Dec 2012 #41
X_Digger Dec 2012 #47
jberryhill Dec 2012 #50
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #54
jberryhill Dec 2012 #60
letemrot Dec 2012 #81
jberryhill Dec 2012 #84
letemrot Dec 2012 #97
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #110
X_Digger Dec 2012 #64
jberryhill Dec 2012 #68
X_Digger Dec 2012 #69
jberryhill Dec 2012 #71
X_Digger Dec 2012 #77
jberryhill Dec 2012 #72
X_Digger Dec 2012 #75
jberryhill Dec 2012 #78
X_Digger Dec 2012 #80
jberryhill Dec 2012 #82
X_Digger Dec 2012 #83
jberryhill Dec 2012 #89
X_Digger Dec 2012 #102
jeff47 Dec 2012 #117
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #107
X_Digger Dec 2012 #114
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #56
jeff47 Dec 2012 #67
X_Digger Dec 2012 #70
jeff47 Dec 2012 #101
X_Digger Dec 2012 #105
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #103
jberryhill Dec 2012 #66
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #104
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #106
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #32
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #24
letemrot Dec 2012 #33
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #40
letemrot Dec 2012 #43
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #48
letemrot Dec 2012 #52
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #57
letemrot Dec 2012 #73
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #59
TeamPooka Dec 2012 #45
X_Digger Dec 2012 #11
Robb Dec 2012 #22
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #26
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #23
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #62
jberryhill Dec 2012 #76
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #118
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #126
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #132
gollygee Dec 2012 #25
Skip Intro Dec 2012 #27
letemrot Dec 2012 #37
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #92
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #119
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #28
letemrot Dec 2012 #34
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #29
letemrot Dec 2012 #39
Logical Dec 2012 #58
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #121
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #120
Purveyor Dec 2012 #53
jberryhill Dec 2012 #63
letemrot Dec 2012 #87
jberryhill Dec 2012 #90
letemrot Dec 2012 #93
jberryhill Dec 2012 #95
letemrot Dec 2012 #96
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #123
letemrot Dec 2012 #128
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #122
letemrot Dec 2012 #129
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #65
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #74
Hoyt Dec 2012 #79
letemrot Dec 2012 #86
Hoyt Dec 2012 #88
letemrot Dec 2012 #91
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #125
letemrot Dec 2012 #130
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #131
letemrot Dec 2012 #133
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #124
snooper2 Dec 2012 #116
Are_grits_groceries Dec 2012 #99
CBGLuthier Dec 2012 #100
rustydog Dec 2012 #111
NCTraveler Dec 2012 #112
apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #115
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #127

Response to letemrot (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:14 PM

1. As I have seen repeatedly, it is foolish to go out on a limb for an employer.

This is typical of the kind of thanks to expect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:17 PM

3. This becomes more and more apparent..

 

He says that he would do the same thing again; even knowing the outcome; because he believes it is the right thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:20 PM

5. Large corporations have made themselves the enemy. I would never go out of my way for a large

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:53 AM - Edit history (1)

faceless corporation in today's world. They want to make sh** for employees in how they treat them, fine, they can have it back. Fuck large corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:15 AM

85. love how you lump all employers into one category. As a small business owner who employs a few

people... let's just say I don't appreciate your comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #85)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:51 AM

98. Sorry, I was thinking more of the larger corporations wherein I spent my life

in senior management. Coming from that ilk, I am not alone in my thoughts. Many of the larger corporations have become nothing short of vultures. I'll edit my earlier comment to include the above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:16 PM

2. Anymore you do what you think is the right thing and it's the wrong thing ... and the

wrong thing is the wrong thing. Some days, it's just not worth it I think many of these stupid inane zero tolerance policies are utterly stupid. Every situation is often unique, there is no one rule fits all. It's simply stupid!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:18 PM

4. As a CCW permit holder, I say he should have been fired

If I was his manager, I also would have fired him. There is a reason why most businesses do not:

1. allow employees to stop thefts or robberies, and

2. have personal weapons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:24 PM

6. His manager thanked him for saving his life

 

I can appreciate your POV. But I disagree; he potentially saved the manager's life. I would *like to think* that I would have courage to do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:30 PM

7. What he did goes 100% armed robbery training

You give them the money and get them out and call Police, whether it's a bank, a store, a library, whatever. Confrontation is the WORST thing to do. This guy is very lucky his actions didn't kill his coworkers and himself, and leave his unborn baby without a father. Anyone with bank training is taught this. Never confront.

He was very, very lucky the outcome happened the way it did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:31 PM

8. And if he had did nothing..

 

And they were killed anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:34 PM

9. Robbers aren't terribly interested in upgrading their crime unnecessarily. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:07 PM

10. I get that..

 

And this suspect has apparently hit this store before and is suspected of at least 30 other robberies without injury that I am aware of. But.. Where is the line drawn? And there are a lot of 'what ifs'.. I don't know.. I don't have the answer. I have not been in this situation nor do I hope to find myself in a similar one.

Edited to add *least

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:29 PM

13. The robber asker for money, he didn't try to change their location

It's like a mugger. Give them the money. If they try to force you into a car, don't go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:38 PM

14. Their money or.. (fill in the blank)

He didn't "ask". If he just "asked", the clerks would have told him to fuck right off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:41 PM

15. Holding a gun does not prevent you from asking for the money. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:44 PM

16. Would you feel just as inclined to say no to someone brandishing a firearm as any other panhandler?

The gun in his hand isn't there as a convenient paperweight just looking for a stack of papers needing to be held down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:54 PM

20. My likely answer doesn't prevent them from asking. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:24 PM

31. It's not "asking" if there's an implied threat- the "or your life" part. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:30 PM

35. Yes, it is asking. I could always chose to accept the threat.

Pedantic arguing over what is truly a question really isn't gonna get you anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:31 PM

36. *sigh* see reply #19. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:42 PM

42. I guess I'll just repeat myself.

Pedantic arguing over what is truly a question really isn't gonna get you anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:44 PM

17. He asked for the money, you know what I mean

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:46 PM

19. Yes, he demanded, threatened, etc. "Asked" makes it sound civil. Armed robbery isn't civil. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:28 PM

12. You don't get it -- what he did is a huge no-no

You never confront if they ask for money or goods. You hand it over and let them leave, then lock the doors and call 911. That is SOP for banks, police, retail, security experts, etc. The only difference is banks and some other places have silent arms to trip.

Robbery leading to death is, thankfully, very rare.

The gentleman being a vet has nothing to do with his actions or his skill. It is very probable many of us are as -- or more -- skilled with a firearm as he is.

He is also an expectant father.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:46 PM

18. You are right.. I don't get it.

 

Seems there was a choice to a) do nothing and allow the store to be robbed; with potential (however unlikely) that the violence escalates. Or b). Do what this guy did and potentially save a life.

You stated it's their policy. Ok. They have the right to terminate for it. Ill even go so far as say ok to that.. But he acted in the moment and potentially saved lives. Ill not be joining in the pile on for that. As to the fact that he is a Vet; well that does have something to do with it. He may have had training with weapons; been in hostile situations before.. And potentially acted in a manner that he had been previously trained to do. All of that is supposition; but they may explain his reaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:58 PM

21. He also risked lives

Statistics show that the robber is very unlikely to injure someone if the employees cooperate.

Statistics show the the robber is much more likely to open fire when confronted with a gun. Statistics also show that the would-be rescuer either fails to fire or misses a significant portion of the time.

It's not like these companies are thrilled at the idea of handing out cash to robbers. But cooperation with the robber has been shown to be the safest course of action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:23 PM

30. I'd be curious to see those stats..

Just to read them. Got a source?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:32 PM

38. I have no idea what statistics are being quoted, but from pure common sense,

why aren't people in 'at risk' jobs being sent for weapons/black belt training as opposed to the $ being spent to train them on how to not engage when being robbed? Corps are nothing but greed factories (on this I do not question we agree) - so why this as a priority?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:52 PM

44. Economics drives this policy as it does with all others

by having their workers comply with a robber
-they loose a couple hundred dollars
-usually no one is injured
--if they are, the insurance will pay for medical bills, employee picks up the deductible
---if they are killed the company pays out $10k or so in life insurance and sends a nice bouquet of flowers

If the workers resist
-the likely hood of injury or death is enhanced with associated costs
-worse, the criminal may be injured. If they do not pay medical, with no deductible, they have a civil case to fight which likely runs $50k+
-if the criminal is killed they face the possibility of civil suits from family who are deprived of the criminal who always seems to have just been turning his life around.

So, dead worker =~$10-20k. Injured/dead criminal=~$50k-1m+
If a employee is injured and tries to sue, company says "Gee your honor, we train our people to not resist so he broke policy and we are not responsible. We will however add a couple more security cameras to watch our employees so this won't happen again."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:11 PM

49. You do not take into account

family suits over training/policy, much less the cost to hire and train new people to replace the dead ones (much less issues for the witnesses). Think it through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:29 PM

55. Still a lower sum

foe example, the case of Katie Poirier a 19 yo kidnapped from her night convenience store job, raped and murdered.
Here is a link to the summary and report of her murderer's sentencing http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200008/17_newsroom_blom/

An investigation found her employer liable
MOOSE LAKE (AP) -- The state has imposed a $50,000 fine on the Moose Lake convenience store where Katie Poirier was working when she was abducted, saying the store failed to protect her "from exposure to violent acts."

The Department of Labor and Industry's Occupational Safety and Health Division fined Cap-Trico Oil and Propane Cooperative, which owns DJ's Expressway Conoco, earlier this month. The company is contesting the violations.

http://brainerddispatch.com/stories/092800/new_0928000003.shtml

all in all, a slap on the wrist. The stores security cameras were positioned to watch the cigarettes so employees would not steal them. The image only showed her abductor from the chest down. I have been to that store in the years since. 2-3 more cameras than in 1999, not much else has changed. I am sure the workers are still told to comply with any criminal demands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:02 PM

108. Being robbed itsn't the same as being abducted

If a robbery asks for money or product, give it to them. If they try to move you to another location, that is when you resist, because the odds are very high you will be killed. But, that isn't a robbery, that is something else.

I read about that incident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #108)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:41 PM

113. I agree with the difference

but I have never seen any company promote that while 'on the clock'. They may offer a class on being safe while going to your car but if you are inside- comply, be it give the money, let them tie you up, lock you in a back room go go with them. To companies there is no point where your life is more valuable than their bottom line.

In my current 'day job' I spout the company line of always comply, that is what a manager has to do. Off the record I tell my workers "It's not your money but it is your life. Do what you have to, to keep what is yours," that is what I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:06 PM

46. My pessimistic guess? It's cheaper to pay off employees' families than risk a lawsuit.

Some actuary somewhere ran the numbers and decided that it would be cheaper to have dead employees than it would be to have the possibility of a lawsuit from a dead robber's family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:22 PM

51. Rewire.

The "the possibility of a lawsuit from a dead robber's family"?

Seriously?

How about the lawsuits of the customers affected, and the families of the dead, AND the those of the live employees involved. OF COURSE profit is a motive - if nothing else, they have dead employees and they have to pay to recruit and train new ones. Corps don't make these policies from thin air.

But I axs ya - In what SANE world is ANY life worth risking over $300 in a cash register just so someone "wins"?

Listening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:37 PM

61. Yep, seriously.

http://www.wrongfulconvictionlawsuitdefense.com/2012/07/articles/news/robbers-family-sues-kroger-really/

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2009/08/28/news/cops_and_courts/doc4a97a70622185219277908.txt

http://articles.wsbt.com/2010-08-28/police-officers_24802929 -- eta: Okay, this one is police, but still..

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video?id=8145770

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/25/accused-burglar-reportedly-countersues-0-year-old-shooting-victim/

But I axs ya - In what SANE world is ANY life worth risking over $300 in a cash register just so someone "wins"?


Like I said below, if I didn't think the guy would shoot, I would just be a good witness. Otherwise, I'm not the one setting the value of my life at $300, that would be the robber.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:55 AM

94. What you say is truth

 

Thanks for your input in the thread. I apparently have angered individuals with this post... I thought it would be pretty straightforward discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:02 PM

109. Exactly, Ruby -- money and product isn't worth it

Companies have theft insurance anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:41 PM

41. Training I've received from several retailers

You're welcome to apply to Home Depot and receive the statistics, the last place I saw them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:07 PM

47. I've seen such handbooks, but it was just quoted as common wisdom, not statistics.

Like I said, I'd be interested to see an actual source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:12 PM

50. If you don't believe insurance companies run on statistics

Then there is nothing that will help you.

The moral of this story is that robbers should shoot to kill every time they commit a robbery. That's where this leads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:28 PM

54. Quite honestly, with my 2+ decades in finance

This would be my first bit of advice. Seriously.

They won't get into the accounts/vault/cash, but how we are set up today, its their only choice of hoping to go out alive. As broke ass as they walked in.

Cooperate, hurt no one, and hope for the best... or flame of glory and fuck any thoughts of a future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:37 PM

60. What I always find interesting in this "set piece"

Is how "Air Force Veteran" makes the headline, as if this means the person in question has any relevant training, skill or experience in dealing with a robbery a an auto parts store.

I know an "Air Force Veteran". He put in a lot of hard work learning how to speak and read Korean. Clearly this qualifies him to be a police officer. I'm sure he could write up parking tickets in Seoul, but that would be about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:10 AM

81. It says Air Force Veteran because, I pulled it from a Veteran site

 

And as it Veteran, that part is what caught my attention. I know many individuals in the USAF that carry weapons everyday. Would it have changed your mind had he been an Army Veteran? If he had been a Marine? What if he were an MP (SP) in the USAF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:13 AM

84. No, it would not change my mind

What he was, was an insubordinate Autozone employee.

Clearly, whatever his weapons training may have been, his proficiency at executing orders sucked ass. Following orders is part of military training, right?

He was not hired to police the store, fly an F-16 in the parking lot, or command a bomber wing. He was hired to - get this - sell auto parts.

He has painted a target on the chest of every other Autozone employee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #84)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:26 AM

97. You keep saying he painted a target

 

Yet it seems to me; that the store is LESS likely to be robbed in the future. You are welcome and entitled to your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:05 PM

110. Retail Managers and Bank Teller have more training and experience

Unless the vet was a security expert or MP or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:39 PM

64. So you don't have a source, either? Someone has to have it, somewhere.. c'mon.

The closest set of actual statistics I know is the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)- http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245

In it, respondents were least likely to be injured during the commission of a crime when they (#1) resisted with a weapon, followed by (#2) no resistance, followed by (#3) resistance without a weapon (punch, scream, etc.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:44 PM

68. That is not specific to retail robbery

But fortunately you are not in a position to set the policy for any such establishments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #68)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:48 PM

69. Hence my asking for more detailed stats. *sigh*

It sounded like Jeff47 had actually laid hands on such stats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:52 PM

71. Insurance company stats are proprietary


What insurance companies do for a living is crunch the numbers. The policies are not determined by how someone "feels" about it, and they do not in general publish their analyses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:05 AM

77. So an appeal to authority? *tsk* *tsk* *tsk*

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:55 PM

72. Here, you are still wrong...

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/robbery_convenience/

"Higher injury rates are consistently found to be correlated with measures employees take during the robbery."

The reference is

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11757047/?i=8&from=HENDRICKS%20SA


Robbery characteristics and employee injuries in convenience stores.

Faulkner KA, et al. Show all Journal
Am J Ind Med. 2001 Dec;40(6) : 703-9.
Affiliation
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261, USA.

-----

Wtf would scientists know anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:02 AM

75. Data from 1996.. NCVS is more recent (2011)

The footnote goes nowhere, but google lands you at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11757047 - data from 1996, published in 2001.

NCVS (2011) covers armed robbery, but is not specific to retail, no.

And I'd love to actually see the study, because it may not say what it's cited as saying- the abstract says that:

Injury risk was strongly associated with the following characteristics: employee resistance, robberies without firearms or money taken, daytime and merchandise robberies, stores with limited escape routes and no cash policy or drop safe, older clerks, and surrounding areas with lower valued buildings, less expensive rent, more vacant structures, and younger residents. Numerous intercorrelations between these characteristics were identified.


But of course you can't tell the method of resistance from the abstract.

Both could be right, if the average retail clerk resists without a weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #75)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:06 AM

78. Then it's not fucking relevant

I am not going to conduct a comprehensive literature review and post it here for you while I'm on my iPhone.

Either the entire retail industry and every risk consultant in it is wrong, or you are drawing conclusions from irrelevant data.

Forward cite search that report, if you think an in-depth study reviewed and published in 2001 is somehow reflective of circumstances which have changed and you cannot identify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:08 AM

80. It may be relevant.. see the other reply..

.. if the main means that retail clerks use to resist is hands / feet (ie, no weapons) then the NCVS result could line up with that study.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #80)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:10 AM

82. There is an entire literature on the specific subject

But don't let me interfere with your faith-based approach. I respect the religious beliefs of others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:13 AM

83. I've not found anything specific in the literature.. maybe it's *proprietary* (aka, just trust me)

I'm open to reading more studies, if you have another source. I have a friend with pubmed access, I'll ask her to get me the Faulkner KA, Landsittel DP, Hendricks SA study when she gets a chance.

Maybe the Bureau of Justice and Statistics is wrong. What do they know, anyway? hehe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #83)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:31 AM

89. I posted two references on retail robbery risk

Using consolidated stats for "victims" of all crimes is patently stupid for the purpose of assessing the risk of action in retail robberies. When a convenience store is robbed, the "victim" is not the clerk in the first place - it is the retail establishment.

The first publication I cited includes a number of references analyzing data specific to retail store robberies.

You are now, I gather, an industrial safety expert, since you can eyeball a set of irrelevant data to refute actual analyses.

There is freedom of religion in this country, and you are entitled to your uninformed faith. I only become concerned when people with actual authority over anything use their faith as a guide to actually setting policy for others. There is no risk of that here, so your faith is harmless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #89)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:10 AM

102. You don't have to be an "industrial safety expert" to read a study..

.. and see if it looks at the methods that people use to resist crime.

But I strongly disagree with the statement, that the "victim" is not the clerk in the first place- it's the clerk (and any customers present) whose lives are threatened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:44 PM

117. I was provided statistics. I was not interested in retaining them for years so that

I could show them to someone on the Internet who will simply dismiss them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:46 PM

107. Ot is SOP for banking, retail, etc: you don;t confront

It's what cops and security experts teach: you do not confront them. Give them money, get them out, lock the doors, call 911.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #107)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:35 PM

114. *nod* I know it's SOP, but I thought he had a source for the stats quoted.

I'd be interested to see them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:30 PM

56. This robber apparently didn't read the supposed statistics

 

Sorry, I've seen too many cases where robbers kill the people in the store to prefer to sit there and possibly be a corpse when there is another option. Even if he didn't pull the gun until it looked like the guy would use it A) he would have been too late and B) still would have been fired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:43 PM

67. So you'd prefer to make the corpses yourself then?

You actually think the robber who has the gun already out is just gonna drop it or run?

He's willing to shoot, but only if no one else has a gun?

Life isn't an action movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #67)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:50 PM

70. You mean like in the case in the OP? You know, the one we're discussing? Hehe.. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:56 AM

101. Meteors strike every single person on the planet

And all Powerball tickets won that jackpot.

Alternatively, single incidents don't tell you what happens in all incidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #101)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:32 AM

105. About once a week someone posts a news piece..

.. of a person successfully resisting a crime with a firearm- armed robbery, home invasion, rape, car jacking..

There's no 'single incident' there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:26 AM

103. Sorry, I don't pretend to read minds

 

Some robbers come in with the plan to kill everyone.

Some robber come in, not planning to do so but panic.

Some come in and leave without hurting anyone.

I can't tell which kind a robber is by looking at them. I'll be really impressed it you can.

If corpses must be made (obviously this isn't the case in most situations-like the one we are discussing) I'd prefer it be the criminal who is violating the rules of society rather than me. If you prefer it be you rather than the criminal, that is your choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:41 PM

66. In the Air Force?

The one Air Force vet I know now is able to speak and read Korean. I don't think he knows what part of a gun bullets come out of.

This man has increased the risk to every other Autozone employee, since the message is - make sure you shoot them dead ASAP when you rob them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #66)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:28 AM

104. Wrong

 

The message is--don't rob AutoZone, where you know the employees have guns--go to Advance or Pep boys.

Well, that was until they made it public that they will not allow their employees to be armed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:44 PM

106. The guy just asked for money, he should not have been confronted

What the "hero" did was against SOP, and I don't mean Autozone's. He was LUCKY he didn't get himself and his coworkers killed. You never confront a robber who is just asking for money. Ever.

Plus, being a vet doesn't mean you know how to handle a situation like like this. Being a cop or security expert, yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:26 PM

32. Good points.

And yes, it is SOP. Thanks for mentioning this. I should have read this whole thread before firing off the missive in #23 http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021928392#post23

I do give credit for ownership though. In a 3rd example, ever notice how sparse the desks are in banks now? A few years ago, a potential thief engaged a bank employee about her kids based on the photos on her desk. He learned their sports, habits and likes and then weeks later kidnapped her daughter with a demand of accessing the vault. Her husband tried to intervene and was shot and killed. She and her daughter lived, but the exchange took place at their home - not in a branch/store with uninformed innocents. So if you ever wonder why banks look so "sterile" - that is one reason as "one personal photo, facing away from customer view" is now policy most everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:14 PM

24. "If he had did"

Did you seriously just write that?

So much for my lengthy reply below. Fallen on deaf NRA-marching-step ears where "If everyone had gunz, we coulda stopped the Aurora movie guy" reigns supreme. YAWN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:29 PM

33. Apparently I done wrote that. <-see I poke fun at myself

 

Apologies. As far as the Aurora incident.. Im not sure i mentioned that anywhere. nor have I suggested anything of the sort.I discussing THIS incident where a Veteran did foil a robbery. What are your thoughts on this. My grammar challenges aside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:37 PM

40. Already posted 'em, champ.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021928392#post23

He was rightfully fired, and I don't want to live in the country you aspire to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:48 PM

43. I'm sorry?

 

What country is it 'that I aspire to see.?' Since you can glean SO MUCH from one post; please enlighten me as to what my thoughts are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:08 PM

48. Citizens running amok with their CCW

threatening the lives of those of us who are innocently standing in line to buy of tub of Turtle Wax or cash a check.

No thanks.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:25 PM

52. Really?

 

Hyperbole much? I never suggested much less said; any such thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:31 PM

57. Read your own OP, Sparky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:57 PM

73. I just re-read it

 

It states the title is wonky.. And it states that I support this fellow Veteran. I do not recall reading that I want all citizens to run amok with weapons, 'Sparky.' May I ask what exactly is the issue that you have with me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:34 PM

59. Where did that happen?

 

I didn't hear anything about a CCW permit holder doing any such thing.

Unless you happen to have a habit of robbing stores, statistics show you are far more likely to be threatened with a gun by a criminal attempting a robbery than a CCCW permit holder.

BTW, CCW permit holders have been all around you and you didn't notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:57 PM

45. then at least you didn't cause it and the deaths are not on your head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:19 PM

11. I'm ambivalent.. you have to be there.

If I thought the guy really didn't want to kill anyone (e.g., if I'd heard of this guy robbing the place before, and 30 others, without injuring anyone), I'd keep my head down and be a good witness.

However, if I thought he was looking to kill someone, fuck corporate policy.

It's not cool that Autozone fired him, but policy is policy. Me doing a line of coke at lunch might lead to me writing a bit of code that my company could patent and corner the widget market- but I'd still expect to get shit-canned if they found out I was high at the time. I wouldn't begrudge them the firing, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:03 PM

22. Nicely put. I also expect whatever insurance they carry

requires the policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:17 PM

26. Excellent example

And well worded to boot. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:11 PM

23. There is a reason for that policy & you should take your pseudo-macho vigilantism elsewhere

This Rambo-wannabe was fired for GOOD reason.

He could have endangered other employees if this thing went south with this stunt.

Ask anyone who has ever worked in a bank. Attempting to "foil" a robbery attempt is grounds for immediate termination for this very reason, even if it works.

Once, a bank I worked for was robbed in a morning glory and the employees were forced at gunpoint to open and enter the vault. When the police arrived, they found the suspect on the floor of the vault with a teller SITTING on him - he was totally pinned down, and she was beating the shit out of him. Punchline: She was 7 months pregnant at the time. (which makes it all the more hilarious in the mental image)

She was also fired for that the same day.

In another attempt, a black employee who had an MBA and spoke with a slight British accent was approached by a robber and went total out-of-character-ebonics and shook her head from side to side, arguing with dude, in her words "I tried to appear 'ghetto' so he would know I wasn't afraid, hoping he would back off the demand". Dude shot a 70-something year old woman waiting in the teller line as he ran out.

If those aren't enough - think of your fucking paycheck at $x per hour and the family that depends on you for emotional AND financial support.

It isn't worth the risk to you or your coworkers (or patrons) for whats in the cash register ($300? $500? meh).

Give them what they want and invest in some fuckin' security cameras.

Its. Not. Worth. A. Life. If. Things. Go. South.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:37 PM

62. Things DIDN'T go south

 

And for the record, Rambo was acting in self-defense from abusive cops.

When there is an option, I don't buy the "Give them what they want" and hope they don't do it again, whether it be petty criminal or white-collar crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:04 AM

76. Yeah, Fuck Science!

Robbery characteristics and employee injuries in convenience stores.

Authors
Faulkner KA, Landsittel DP, Hendricks SA.

Journal
Am J Ind Med. 2001 Dec;40(6) : 703-9.

Godammned pointy headed labcoat-wearing geeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:05 PM

118. He wanted to be a cowboy, and was lucky as hell someone didn't die

Including himself.

And, Rambo wasn't a hero, no matter what jerks the cops were to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #118)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:14 PM

126. He may have prevented someone from dying

 

It is just a likely that it was lucky he was there.

Who claimed Rambo was a hero?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #126)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:31 PM

132. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:16 PM

25. They have their policy for a reason

It could be an insurance issue, it could be due to statistics - that having a firearm there more often leads to a death than prevents one, but they made that policy for a reason and he didn't follow it.

On the other hand, it might also be within their power to recognize he didn't follow policy but also recognize that everything worked out well and to decide not to fire him. It probably depends on how the policy is worded and the specific reason behind it.

I guess I can an argument for them handling it either way, but in the end they'd have to decide what to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:19 PM

27. Guy's a hero for standing up for what is right, for saying, "no, you can't do that."

It isn't about his employer, he'll probably have a much better job before the week is out.

This is bigger than that.

He's a hero because he fought back.

Kudos to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:32 PM

37. I hope you are correct

 

About the job and I agree that he is in fact a hero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:43 AM

92. He'll need to inform his next employer of the reason he was terminated when asked.

Good luck with him getting that next job after telling a prospective employer that he has no problem breaking company rules he perceives as not pertaining to him.



My insurance would not let me hire him knowing his blatant disregard for company policy toward employees potentially using deadly force against a thief, as he is a proven liability risk.

They would cancel if I did.

He's not a hero.

He is a nightmare of potential litigation for an employer.


I wonder how many here would be praising this guy as a 'hero' if he fired his weapon, missed the alleged perpetrator, and shot a bystander dead in the parking lot.

Stuff like that does happen leaving employers holding the bag, and that is why corporations have rules against employees taking it upon themselves and doing something really disastrous leaving the employer open to massive legal liability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #92)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:07 PM

119. There would have been cries to pillory him

And a huge Gungeonlike thread would have ensued.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:19 PM

28. Doing the moral thing doesn't always lead to good consequences.


That's just the way it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:30 PM

34. I think this is the response that sums it up the best.

 

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:21 PM

29. "..ran out to my truck, grabbed my weapon, came back and confronted the guy..."

You, sir, are a dumbass, and give legal owners a bad rap.


On edit: this is directed at the guy in the story, not the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:36 PM

39. Well my grammar would suggest I am in fact

 

A dumbass.. But I knew what you meant. Thanks for the clarification, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:33 PM

58. You sir are 100% correct! My CCW trainer said the same thing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:09 PM

121. As did mine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:09 PM

120. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:28 PM

53. My guess is that the Autozone insurance company forbids armed employees as a liability issue just

like they require drug testing of all employees while employed there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:38 PM

63. It makes every other employee a target

This guy just painted a bullseye on the chest of everyone who works at Autozone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #63)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:26 AM

87. Possibly removed just such a target

 

As this was the 2nd time this store had been robbed... There may be pause before another robbery attempt is made at this store.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #87)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:33 AM

90. Bless you, brother, for your faith

This may come as a surprise to you, but Autozone runs more than this one store.

The takeaway here is that "hire a vet, they make good employees" stuff is obviously not true, if your attitude towards following orders is exemplary of what employers may expect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #90)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:50 AM

93. Then don't hire a Vet

 

It's not a matter of 'faith' any more than your 'faith' that he painted targets on them. There are two plausible outcomes Crimiminals wanting an easy score will not go to the store that is defended with a firearm. Or Criminals wanting to score know that this store is protected by firearms and must blast their way in. If, as so many here have suggested criminals attempt to be pragmatic in their target selection to be as successful as possible they would probably go to the less armed place. Most Veterans think within the moment and react to the situation as it unfolds. They used to tell us not to identify ourselves as military on airplanes that have been attacked. Now they advise us that if the situation permits we should try and organize and then fight to retake the plane. The point really is that we have to decide what measures are for us passive or active and we have to make that decision based upon the tactical problem at hand. Situation dependent. Which is what this guy did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #93)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:55 AM

95. I will consider your advice


I expect my employees to follow explicit instructions. I had never, before now, realized that veterans consider themselves to have some sort of exemption from that basic principle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #95)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:04 AM

96. Well... if you give such explicit instructions

 

You probably do not want Veterans to begin with; cause contrary to what so many think; detailed specific orders are rarely given except go here or there. Once there, the Soldier is expected to deal whatever problems arise in that AO. That requires them to think on their feet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:14 PM

123. Beacuse service members are taught to take the orders and follow SOP

When they deviate is when bad things happen.

Neither most service members or most vets act like how you describe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #123)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:03 AM

128. Actually

 

I would suggest you look up "LGOP" and actually speak with some service members and Veterans (combat type) before you say "most." In fact.. We are taught "do something; even if it is wrong." Because being static will get you killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #93)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:12 PM

122. Oh, vets do not act like that

You make them sound like a hybrid of Wolverine and loose cannons. Vets, including my relatives, are good employees, and show the same discipline, integrity, and following of orders they showed in teh military. If the guy in the OP disobeyed orders like that in the military, he wouldn't be praised, he would be demoted and punished in other ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #122)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:05 AM

129. Well your relatives

 

Obviously trump my 22 years of service. Therefore; you win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:40 PM

65. This story comes up about once a year...

Many retailers have strict policies, not just about guns, but about trying to interfere with or foil a robbery -- and even shoplifting. The danger to their customers is just not worth whatever's in the cash register.

If you don't follow the rules, you get fired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:00 AM

74. AutoZone has been recognized as one of the 10 worst companies to work for:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:07 AM

79. The guy has probably been hoping for a chance to grab his gun for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:16 AM

86. And what, pray tell, do you base that judgement from?

 

I would love to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:31 AM

88. My long time knowledge of those who tote, and why.

What makes you think he hasn't? Do you honestly think those who cherish having guns nearby in our society are boy scouts? Come on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:33 AM

91. I think that he had the weapon for self defense, and used it in just such a manner.

 

Doesn't mean he has been 'hoping for this to happen though.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #91)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:18 PM

125. He did NOT use it in self defense

Not per any class I've ever taken. He was not in immediate threat of death or bodily harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #125)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:07 AM

130. Really?

 

There wasn't an individual with a gun pointing it at the Vet & others? I could have sworn that I read a criminal with a gun was thwarted by this man with his gun. Could you point to the story where the criminal didnt have a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #130)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:31 PM

131. Yes, really

How could he be threatened by the robber if he was OUTSIDE IN HIS VEHICLE getting his gun? He wasn't.

If you took a CCW class and weren't taught that, I suggest you retake the class, and this time with an instructor actually informed and educated on the laws and ethics of gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #131)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:56 PM

133. I'm not a CCW holder

 

Don't think I ever stated I was. However; I do know that gun implies a threat; and responding to that threat is defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:17 PM

124. I usually diagree with Hoyt, but I agree with him here

I really dislike "cop wannabees" and "Rambo wannabees." This guy reminds me of the guy in my CCW class who was kicked, for asking one too many, "Are we allowed to brandish if..." "What happens if we see...."

He didn't even call 911. He ran outside, around the building, unlocked his vehicle, got his handgun out, and ran back in and confronted the guy. It would have been better to call the cops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:14 PM

116. you're right, I see him driving around dark parking lots, looking for shady characters..

Walking the back alleys behind liquor stores waiting for some punk beeyatch to jump him...

waiting, waiting,


for years,

Finally, my chance, Who knew it would be at my work, At AUTOZONE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:35 AM

99. At one chain where I worked,

there was a buton to push to alarm the police in case of robbery. We were told ad nauseum to push that button AFTER The thieves had left. They did not want to create a hostage situation.

I hope none of you heroes are around if this type of situation comes up. You are endangering everyone even more. Yes, you can find cases where the robber is a stone cold killer bent on mayhem no matter what. Those are outliers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:43 AM

100. and he should have been fired for it.

Sure, it turned out OK. But every once in a while or sooner or later one of these heroes will kill an innocent by escalating the situation. There is nothing to be gained by doing what this man did.

I support Autozone in this case. I shop there and I do not want their employees carrying weapons in their store.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:05 PM

111. Veteran or not he violated company policy

had he been injured in his heroic effort, he may not have been covered under workman's comp because he decided to completely ignore policy. run into the store with your weapon, trip accidentally shoot someone else while violating company policy...ok.

you can replace stolen-robbed monies-property rather easily, you get killed or paralyzed for life ignoring policy.....your fault, sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:13 PM

112. I would have fired him.

No employee of mine is to protect my business or belongings under such circumstances. And 2 guns instead of one could have seriously escalated the robbery. I believe that showed a serious lack in judgment that could have ended with multiple people dead. Really lucky it didn't. This guy is suspected of all of those robberies without Killing someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:48 PM

115. Good: he deserved to be fired. No guns means no guns. If he was truly a "law abiding

gun owner" he would have respected his employer's right to set appropriate policies meant to keep the workplace safe, instead of brazenly flouting it so he could be a Rambo-wannabe.

Edit: typo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:44 PM

127. Here is the problem with "heros"...

They have a tendency to either get themselves killed or seriously hurt, and then they or their survivors sue the retailer for failing to protect the "hero" who decided it was a good idea to escalate a dangerous situation.

The retailer I worked for had a loss prevention dork confront a meth addict in the parking lot who then beat him to within an inch of death. I believe the company settled for more than 3.6 million dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread