Jump to content

AutoZone Fires Worker Who Stopped Robbery


Recommended Posts

http://radio.foxnews...ed-robbery.html

 

Never been a fan of this place but I will most certainly avoid them now. This is ridiculous.

He wasnt even carrying, he violated the "no guns" policy when he retrieved the gun from his vehicle and thwarted the robbery. He was fired for bringing the gun into the store to save his manager's life!!! WTF?

 

For those who participate

 

https://www.facebook...tOfDevinMcclean

 

 

https://www.facebook...utozone?fref=ts

 

Pretty funny reading all the comments on their facebook page, their page has been completely overrun with negative comments on all their posts!

Edited by big-J
Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has had to play the security role after an armed robbery, he should have known that it wasn't going to end well. Most large corporate stores do not want employees putting themselves in harms way like that and they really don't want you doing it with a gun. Sucks for him, but not surprising to me at all

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has had to play the security role after an armed robbery, he should have known that it wasn't going to end well. Most large corporate stores do not want employees putting themselves in harms way like that and they really don't want you doing it with a gun. Sucks for him, but not surprising to me at all

 

I know you're right, ive been in retail management for decades, but as an individual, I couldnt live with myself if I didnt do something to help and protect the people I work with. And I have to live with myself every day of the year.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you're right, ive been in retail management for decades, but as an individual, I couldnt live with myself if I didnt do something to help and protect the people I work with. And I have to live with myself every day of the year.

I completely agree with you. When we had to stake out waiting if the guy was coming back where I worked, if I had actually thought he was coming back I would have carried. I don't feel too bad for this guy though. I think he'll get a much better job than AutoZone after this whole thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it sucks but it happens. I work for Carquest and their policy is no employee possession of weapons on or in any place or thing they own. Grounds for termination. True story. edited for tiny phone fat fingers.

Edited by 86camaro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Large companies make you agree that you will be submissive during a robbery. Its sorta tangled in the hire contract. I worked at a blockbuster in the ghetto while in college. We were robbed constantly, the only thing they did to "protect" us was hiring a non-armed guard at the door who just ended up getting pistol whipped. They did however provide immediate psyhciatric help to those who were traumatized during the events lmao.

 

Its mostly the company not wanting to be liable for people who refuse to be cowards. I never saw any reason to attempt to stop it. I'm not about to risk my life for some douches money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why 0-tolerance policies are rarely the right answer to any problem. I can somewhat understand the policy, but things like this need to be handled on a case by case basis instead of just saying gun = find a new job. I get the feeling the policy is to discourage employees from bringing guns into work and potentially disturbing customers or coworkers, and potentially to guard them against lawsuits should someone bring a gun to work and do something stupid.

 

This guy didn't even bring the gun into work, he left it in his car and only went to get his gun when it was a totally reasonable reaction to the situation he was in. He was trying to abide by the policy by not bringing it in, but when someone points a gun at you or your coworker the policy takes a back seat to protecting yourself and others.

 

While what AutoZone did was completely legal, we have Good Samaritan laws for similar types of situations that prevent people from being prosecuted for trying to rescue people. Not sure if being held at gunpoint "counts" in terms of those laws, but the general idea is that you shouldn't be punished for trying to do rescue somebody.

 

While AutoZone doesn't have any legal obligation, looking at the spirit of the law might show them what the right thing to do is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a list of these corporations that have fired employees for violating weapons policies when used in defense so we can never give them a cent, again. I know Walgreen's is one that recently did the same thing:

 

http://amerpundit.com/2011/09/14/walgreens-fires-pharmacist-for-defending-himself-other-employees-against-armed-gunman/

 

Can anyone add to this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure he doesn't have a case for challenging this in court. As far as I could tell he did nothing to violate the company policy up until the time a life was in danger. Once that happened, the right to self preservation trumps everything else. And I'm talking about the manager who was still inside. HIS right to be protected any way possible since the company had failed to protect him. I'm sure it was also company policy not to leave the store before his shift was over but I don't think they would have enforced that if he had just kept running. This felony in progress should trump all of that. Also, if the store had a no gun policy for customers and a good Samaritan just happened to be walking by and stopped the robbery and the threatening of lives with a gun there is no way they could prosecute him for bringing a gun on the property because, once again, lives were in danger. I'm not sure he should even want his job back but he might just want to see a good lawyer and make sure his last check is a big one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In most states, bringing a firearm onto posted private property is not a criminal action. They can only be asked to leave by the owners, if be cited/arrested for trespassing if they refuse.

Well then let's say he had already been trespassed from the property and then later observed this crime in progress from across the street. It would normally be a crime for him to step back on the property but not if he were coming to the aid of a person in danger. At least it would not be prosecutable. But I think you get my point. An immediate threat to human life should supersede any company policy, and most laws for that matter. Good Samaritan laws protect people who act to rescue someone who is in imminent peril. These laws vary a lot in different jurisdictions but that is where I would start exploring.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem is that as part of the company policies, he has signed that he agrees to not ever bring in a gun. As soon as he does, no matter the reason, self defense, show his buddies, display a cool act of juggling...etc. he has violated the contract and they can do with him from there as they wish. They may retract it once all this spreads around, but he has signed away his job protection when he put his name on that X the day he got hired. I think it is good that he is getting the notoriety from all this, and maybe it will change some companies policies regarding this stuff. Unfortunately, he IS liable for his actions, and his actions were grounds for termination (even if morally they were the most appropriate actions). In the perfect world, everyone could carry on the job, theft would bottom out, robberies would become non-existent, and all these mass shootings the left is so paranoid about would either disappear or be put to an end very soon after they start. Sadly we aren't quite there yet

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was not violating the company policy by having the gun outside in his truck. He is not allowed to bring a gun inside the store BUT he was under extreme duress when he brought it from the truck into the store and believed he needed to act to save another man's life. That changes everything. I believe a judge could look at their company policy and rule that the intent of the policy was to prevent guns from being brought into the store under casual circumstances and not in the course of directly acting to save a life. Company policies cannot be absolute. They have to be consistent with human and civil rights as well as some laws. I'm not saying it's a slam dunk case, but I think it needs to be examined from every aspect.

Edited by DogMan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it's a slam dunk case, but I think it needs to be examined from every aspect.

Exactly, I'm sure this guys phone is ringing off the hook with lawyers chomping at the bit on this one. I only tend to go with the corporate lawyers on this one because these corporations play NFL draft day with their legal staff and try to get the best of the best. If their legal staff thought the guy had a case, I don't think he'd be canned right now

 

Edit: As a side note, I was involved in this (http://salem.patch.c...morning-robbery) as security for the company, we were placed on active watch each morning when they feared the guy would come back. I inquired into being able to carry while keeping this watch. The explanation was, that even though our policy didn't specify between a parking lot and a store, having both areas associated to the store, meant that bringing a gun into the parking lot constituted bringing into the store because the company is just as liable for weapon misuse there as they were in the store. If I had felt the guy would return I would have carried anyways and got a lawyer. He never came back though, was caught 1 year later

Edited by VR6Shooter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the lifeguard that was fired for leaving his 'zone' to save a person drowning just outside of his area. Just plain idiocy and a sign of the times when people choose to punish someone for behavior that should actually be reinforced. It can be company policy, rules, regulations, whatever... but it was still a person, a human being (or maybe perhaps not truly) somewhere in that company's management that made the decision that it was somehow a better idea to say, 'You broke the rules and that's what's important.'

 

With that being said, it's unlikely that he has a case. There is no legal duty or requirement to act on another person's behalf to save them. It was his choice to re-enter the store after making his exit... and it's the company's choice to let him go. Like mentioned before, he's going to have no problem finding solid employment with the media surrounding the case.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been on both sides of this sort of decision simultaeusly. I was effectively management for an organization that hosts public events with a lot of young people. We had healthy relationships with many businesses and civic organizations.

 

Then a guy who was a regular went off of several deep ends. We had to bounce him for a variety of reasons and he kept trying to come back. He pretty much stalked and harrased about 20 of the young women, and kept showing up at random times. Oh and he CCWs a glock, and believes himself to be the wronged hero of every situation he creates. Several of our board members, including myself had CPLs. This meant that we had a specific need to be prepared, but wanted only people with cool heads to pack. What we decided was that we would neither request nor prevent people from CCW at our events. On average, I would say that at least 3 of our leadership people are CCW at any one of our public events, but there is never any directive to do so. We pretty much have a gunshop style policy: you are welcome to pack legally- but it better not come out unless you are getting shot at. Oh, and we have no problem with ejecting people acting like fools. If this involves a gun, doubly so. If you are packing at one of our events, we don't mind. If you are being a jackass, you are gone whether or not you have a gun. We might ask individuals who are legal to carry not to, but only if they seem to be irresponsible or hotheads.

 

It's been 3 or 4 years since we officially tresspassed this guy, and I've made it clear to him, that we will be calling the sherriffs the second he shows up. He pushes it right up to the letter of the terms I gave him, and will turn up at our events about once every 2 or 3 months, and try to weasel his way back in. He has a nack for knowing when people with backbones aren't around so he can push around the new people- especially young women.

 

The bottom line decision we made was that if we ever had to confront this guy or anyone else with force, it could certainly shut us down or at least close a lot of doors we spent years getting opened. However, none of that is worth the life of anyone at our events. We decided that even though we are a limited liability non-profit company, there would still be a strong chance that our personal assets could be risked, not to mention jail time and a media circus. Dealing with everything on a one on one basis without an official policy beyond having the right to kick anyone out, and a policy not to restrict people beyond what the law does gives us the most freedom to allow responsible people to carry, and ask anyone else to leave. We welcome responsible people to carry, we believe when honest men are armed, the dishonest or unstable are the only ones who have reason to fear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...