In recent news...

[Katun]

Wow, check this out:
 
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705366343/4-Layton-Walmart-employees-fired-after-disarming-gunman-caught-shoplifting.html
 
What do you guys think about this?

 

[Rip N' Burn]

So according to Walmart, they should have done nothing and potentially let the gunman shoot them or harm others in the store. Walmart has this policy in place because of liability issues and the fear of getting sued. This tells me that:   MONEY>HUMAN LIFE
 
Thumbs up to Walmart for their compassion and understanding about the ominous experience that their employees had to go through!

 

[llama_egg]

You do know this is how many retail chains work right? Hell, where I work we're not even suppose to touch the person who's shoplifting, we're suppose to get management or our theft prevention person, as our health is more important than whatever they are stealing. In that case, guess what, it's Human life > Money.
 
McDonalds, A&W, heck, even freaking banks will fire you for trying to stop an armed theft. They all tell you the same thing, go along with whatever they are saying, as money can be replaced, your life can not.
 
This is not a new thing, rules like this have been around for quite a while now.
 
Quote:

So according to Walmart, they should have done nothing and potentially let the gunman shoot them or harm others in the store. Walmart has this policy in place because of liability issues and the fear of getting sued. This tells me that:   MONEY>HUMAN LIFE
 
Thumbs up to Walmart for their compassion and understanding about the ominous experience that their employees had to go through!

 

[El_Doug]

^voice of reason, ty mr. llama

 

[Rip N' Burn]

Yes I know and it was Walmart's theft prevention people (walmart calls them asset protection people) that got a loaded gun pressed up against his back. They effectively disarmed and subdued the guy and they got fired for it. To me this is an issue about the right to defend yourself if your life is threatened. I see more potential danger in 'doing nothing' in this circumstance. I agree with what you said in general but this is an unique case. I've worked at a local hardware store and seen theft prevention people tackle and and aggressively subdue people. They were praised for what they did and the company wasn't fearful that their theft prevention staff would sue them. They would even brag and showcase any scars they got when going after thieves. I'm not advocating that an average Joe or Jane should get involved.
 
Quote:

You do know this is how many retail chains work right? Hell, where I work we're not even suppose to touch the person who's shoplifting, we're suppose to get management or our theft prevention person, as our health is more important than whatever they are stealing. In that case, guess what, it's Human life > Money.
 
McDonalds, A&W, heck, even freaking banks will fire you for trying to stop an armed theft. They all tell you the same thing, go along with whatever they are saying, as money can be replaced, your life can not.
 
This is not a new thing, rules like this have been around for quite a while now.
 
Quote:

So according to Walmart, they should have done nothing and potentially let the gunman shoot them or harm others in the store. Walmart has this policy in place because of liability issues and the fear of getting sued. This tells me that:   MONEY>HUMAN LIFE
 
Thumbs up to Walmart for their compassion and understanding about the ominous experience that their employees had to go through!

 

 

[llama_egg]

The people who Theft Prevention aren't just random employee's though, they're allowed to do much more then an average worker is in that case.
 
And following the case in question, the guy never gave any indication he was going to shoot, instead he just wanted to leave, by acting the way they did it could have caused more damage then it could have prevented. What if while acting to apprehend him, he ended up killing one and shooting another? This is why they tell you to not interfere and instead let them go unhindered, nothing is more dangerous then a person backed into a corner so to speak.
 
While I don't agree with them being fired, it was a highly foolish thing to do what they did. Being ex-military I believe that people have the right to defend themselves when the need presents itself, but we're talking about an armed man with nothing to lose and some unarmed employees.

 

[Rip N' Burn]

I wasn't insinuating that an average worker should be a hero. A theft prevention person had their life threatened. Even if the person didn't intend to shoot, he still had a loaded gun and pressed it against the theft prevention employee's back which is more dangerous than a someone being backed into a corner. What if they did not resist him and they still got shot? The point is that the man was acting irrationally. You cannot trust a person in that state of mind not to shoot. He can say whatever he wants. I don't think what they did was foolish at all. It took alot of courage and I respect that.
 
Quote:

The people who Theft Prevention aren't just random employee's though, they're allowed to do much more then an average worker is in that case.
 
And following the case in question, the guy never gave any indication he was going to shoot, instead he just wanted to leave, by acting the way they did it could have caused more damage then it could have prevented. What if while acting to apprehend him, he ended up killing one and shooting another? This is why they tell you to not interfere and instead let them go unhindered, nothing is more dangerous then a person backed into a corner so to speak.
 
While I don't agree with them being fired, it was a highly foolish thing to do what they did. Being ex-military I believe that people have the right to defend themselves when the need presents itself, but we're talking about an armed man with nothing to lose and some unarmed employees.

 

[nycdoi]

people that have that kind of guts deserve better jobs 

 

[scompton]

I'm in complete agreement with llama_egg on this one.  Even if the person trying to disarm him was trained in doing it, doubtful, there is still a good chance the gun could go off.

 

[llama_egg]

The most basic of examples I can come up with is the very Police themselves. How often do they run into a hostage situation, unarmed with little information? They don't, because it's a silly, silly idea, too many things could go wrong.

 

[Rip N' Burn]

Well if a police officer was substituted for the theft prevention employee who had the loaded gun stuck in their back, I seriously doubt the officer would do nothing about it. How often do you hear of the police taken hostage?

 

[llama_egg]

You seem to have misunderstood me, I'll try and make it a bit more clear what I was trying to say.
 
In a situation where a person is held hostage, whether that be a bank or in their very home, and the police are on the scene, they do not just run in hoping for the best. If anything they would rather talk the person into surrendering as their is less likely hood of a mishap happening. The reason for this is that with one wrong move somebody ends up either dead or injured.
 
As for Police being taken hostage, it doesn't happen often because they aren't convenient targets. Most hostages are normal civilians, who are mostly unarmed and untrained in high pressure situations, let alone one at gunpoint.
 
But going further into the idea that if a Police Officer was taken instead of the employees of Walmart, they would not just bum-rush the guy unless they where 100% sure it is worth the risk. It once again comes down to them trying to talk some sense into him, in the hopes to end the confrontation without bloodshed.
 
I just used the Police example to help give a visual image of what I'm trying to voice. In most cases it's not a smart idea to provoke an armed personal, and by doing so they not only put themselves in danger, but also the person that was being held hostage at the time.

 

[sari0n]

I wonder whose decision it was to fire them.  If anything, it's rather cold to just go up to a couple of employee who just successfully prevented an armed robbery and tell them they're fired just like that.  I'm surprised they weren't given an opportunity to quit or something like that. 

 

[scompton]

They violated a zero tolerance standing policy.  The policy exists to protect people from getting shot, but more importantly to protect the company from law suits.  You can bet that if the gun went off and someone was shot, Walmart would have a big law suit on their hands. 

 

[Rip N' Burn]

If they did nothing and got shot Walmart would also have a big lawsuit on their hands as well. The theft prevention employees mitigated the circumstance using personal discretion and it worked. Management should have least taken this into fair consideration before they made their decision to fire them.