Autozone employee stops robbery - gets fired

I respect the business's decision to terminate him although I don't agree with it

I would've went back in too if someone was still in there with the armed robber

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

I didn't say anything about stores. I said we need to change the law to favor the innocent (workers and businesses) and punish the criminals. Right now, criminals are able to sue honest businesses for things that occurred as a result of their crime. I guess I am in the minority that feels this is wrong. Businesses are afraid to act in any capacity because of lawsuits. As a result, robbery is rampant and generally goes unpunished. Not the kind of world I want to live in.

So would two crimes cancel each other out? Non-violent theft stopped by a criminally negligent store policy allowing cashiers to use deadly force to stop shoplifting? Or would you seek to decriminalize criminal negligence?

Two wrongs make a right? Let might make right?

Originally Posted by JonJon

I respect the business's decision to terminate him although I don't agree with it

I would've went back in too if someone was still in there with the armed robber

Didn't think of that though....I wonder if he ran back in because the perp was holding someone else up.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Didn't think of that though....I wonder if he ran back in because the perp was holding someone else up.

That's what he claims. The Air Force taught him to "never leave a fallen comrade".

He was "falling back on training" with his "glock 40"

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

So would two crimes cancel each other out? Non-violent theft stopped by a criminally negligent store policy allowing cashiers to use deadly force to stop shoplifting? Or would you seek to decriminalize criminal negligence?

Two wrongs make a right? Let might make right?

No. I said reasonable force, the same standard as self defense. The store would be allowed to use reasonable force to secure their property and detain the subject until police arrive. Now, the subject can cause the store to elevate their response.....and it can indeed be escalated to deadly force. Cameras will be a very good investment for businesses.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

That's what he claims. The Air Force taught him to "never leave a fallen comrade".

He was "falling back on training" with his "glock 40"

If that is the case, I wouldnt fault the guy. Could you look in the mirror if you ran and you found out later your coworker, a father of 3 was killed? I couldn't.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

No. I said reasonable force, the same standard as self defense. The store would be allowed to use reasonable force to secure their property and detain the subject until police arrive. Now, the subject can cause the store to elevate their response.....and it can indeed be escalated to deadly force. Cameras will be a very good investment for businesses.

The slippery slope, though, is what outcomes are ok for the store? What if their "reasonable" force for a non-violent criminal ends up killing the alleged thief? How much leeway are the cashiers given in what is reasonable? Is the store going to train its employees in the application of hand-to-hand combat so that they can safely subdue a suspect? Or are they just going to trust employees to use their discretion in who's ass they can kick and who's they can't? Would it be allowable to have five employees working together to give a beating to a single suspect?

It's a hell of a lot easier, safer, and more prudent for a large corporation to simply say "don't engage"

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

If that is the case, I wouldnt fault the guy. Could you look in the mirror if you ran and you found out later your coworker, a father of 3 was killed? I couldn't.

Did I make it home safely? Then yes, I could.

I'm not in combat. This isn't my squad, team, platoon, company, etc. I have no bonds with this person forged through months and years of training, no common cause, nothing.

This isn't my brother in arms, this is my store manager. I'll get over my survivor's guilt.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

You're pettyfogging. If a violent criminal (with a knife or a gun) tries to rob a store, a clerk does not know if he will survive the ordeal. The clerk is in fear for their life and kills the robber. The store can still be sued. That was my point.

The employee entered into an explicit agreement at the start of their employment that outlined what they could and could not do. They were under no legal obligation to take said job.

If the clerk does not violate any State or Federal Laws in the execution of killing said robber, then representatives on behalf of the robber have no grounds to sue either the clerk nor the employer.

However, since the clerk violated store policy he is subject to termination of employment and the employer is protected by law in doing so.



Hope that's clear.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

The slippery slope, though, is what outcomes are ok for the store? What if their "reasonable" force for a non-violent criminal ends up killing the alleged thief? How much leeway are the cashiers given in what is reasonable? Is the store going to train its employees in the application of hand-to-hand combat so that they can safely subdue a suspect? Or are they just going to trust employees to use their discretion in who's ass they can kick and who's they can't? Would it be allowable to have five employees working together to give a beating to a single suspect?

It's a hell of a lot easier, safer, and more prudent for a large corporation to simply say "don't engage"

Not your problem. It would be the businesses problem. They will hold the liability. However the CHOICE should be theirs. As for the large corporation comment, that's the problem, most businesses are not large corporations and can't always take the robbery hits.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

The employee entered into an explicit agreement at the start of their employment that outlined what they could and could not do. They were under no legal obligation to take said job.

If the clerk does not violate any State or Federal Laws in the execution of killing said robber, then representatives on behalf of the robber have no grounds to sue either the clerk nor the employer.

However, since the clerk violated store policy he is subject to termination of employment and the employer is protected by law in doing so.



Hope that's clear.

I never disagreed. I support their right to fire 100%. That was not my beef.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

I never disagreed. I support their right to fire 100%. That was not my beef.

It's not like the robber's family can sue the employer because their clerk violated store policy by killing their son/father/husband for an armed robbery. "Had my husband known that AutoZone employees might have been armed he would have robbed the iHOP down the street."

hmmm If the robber did have a gun, he should have stayed out of the building and shot him from there lol...jk...

for all of you "autozone has a policy, he broke it so they have the right to fire him" people.... no one is denying that they have a right to fire him... you're arguing a moot point.

the point is that it was a douche move to fire the guy, regardless of whether or not he violated their policy. and spare me all the "well if they make an exception for this guy, then.." BS.

Originally Posted by broey v

for all of you "autozone has a policy, he broke it so they have the right to fire him" people.... no one is denying that they have a right to fire him... you're arguing a moot point.

the point is that it was a douche move to fire the guy, regardless of whether or not he violated their policy. and spare me all the "well if they make an exception for this guy, then.." BS.

Although I don't agree with the reason, I support the right of a private business to fire/hire anyone they want for any reason. My beef is people here claim that these companies don't want the liability of a lawsuit from the thief. You cannot make policy for "employee safety" because each circumstance is different. Sometimes it will be some pissant kid with an airsoft, and sometimes it will be a gangmember that doesn't want to leave witnesses.

To me, this is similar with the fight I had last year with my in-laws HOA. I took my daughter to their pool. She was only 2 at the time, so she was swimming with an inflatable. The lifeguard came up to me and told me the HOA rules state no toys allowed in the pool. He was a young kid, so I told him that I understand he has a job to do, but I will deal with the HOA, don't worry about it. I told him to call his boss and explained the situation to him, and kept swimming. Now, later that week, I met with the HOA with my attorney.

Here are some facts....

1) If a pool is open with a sign "swim at your own risk, no lifeguard on duty" the liability shifts to the individual. This goes for public beaches. When the lifeguard leaves, you're on your own.

2) If you HAVE lifeguards, you shift the liability on to yourself (the HOA) (in the case of the HOA, a lifeguard subcontractor).

3) Not allowing my daughter to have an inflatable adds a MASSIVE liability to the development.

They all looked at each other and the next day, the toy policy was gone. They can have a no baby policy, but not a no toys policy.

So, back to Autozone...by having this policy on PAPER, employees can claim that they were afraid to lose their jobs and didn't do anything, which may result in the murder of a coworker....(ie an employee has a CCW but he was afraid to act since he has 3 kids to feed and doesnt want to lose his job, and as a result, his coworker gets killed.)...meaning, the company on paper forbids their employees to defend themselves, or risk losing their jobs. The above comments are more related to the Walgreens incident rather than this one (because the kid ran out and back) but you get the point. I think the companies are opening themselves up for a greater liability with these policies.

The dude works at an AutoZone. Why would he even bother risking his life and the lives of others by confronting the robber? The stores insurance will repay their loss.

Originally Posted by kaput

Two things.

1: Study harder to get out of the fast food industry, although from the sentence structure and grammar, it appears you have found your niche.

2: You know why they tell people not to attempt to stop a robbery? Lawsuits. They don't want to get sued if you injure the robber, or the civil suit from his family from killing him.

Autozone acted both wrong and right. They have the opportunity to change the way people view their stores, and dropped the ball. They followed their policy, but in the end they lost an employee and the money, and a little respect.

hehe i just re read my op it was funny. in any event you lack knowledge of what to do during a robbery..

btw im currently in college progressing towards a MBA

not to prevent lawsuits you are incorrect and i don't know where you heard that from.

$5,000 is replaceable not a human life so you cooperate.

policy is policy the employee did a foolish thing which you lack the knowledge of operating a business to completing understand

Originally Posted by TopazBlu02

The dude works at an AutoZone. Why would he even bother risking his life and the lives of others by confronting the robber? The stores insurance will repay their loss.

Because hero.