Autozone employee stops robbery - gets fired

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Personally, in this particular case, no, but not because of what you think. I wouldn't hire him because he is an idiot for running back in. Shows terrible judgement and brain capacity. The Walgreens guy from back in the day? Absolutely.

So your strongman loss prevention guys you don't want initiating contact, but you'd hire a loose cannon like this that's going to draw down on a thief?

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

The guy that this thread is about was fired for violating his company's weapons policy. Would you hire him?

If they were the best qualified candidate and had honestly answered the question as to why they were fired I would not hold it against them. Being fired from a job is not an automatic disqualification. Lying and/or hiding it would be. However, since he brought a weapon to the workplace when he should have not, I most likely would not hire them.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

My screening process is just fine.

Sounds like a complete joke to me. You don't run social security, criminal or education background checks. You don't check their past employment history. You scream incompetent if you don't think lying on a resume doesn't speak volumes about a persons integrity, an integral part of any job, instead relying purely on your "training".

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

So your strongman loss prevention guys you don't want initiating contact, but you'd hire a loose cannon like this that's going to draw down on a thief?

No. Are you a gun guy? If yes, it should be easy for you to understand. It's not the gun, but the judgement. A smart person would know when to draw and when to hand it over. The walgreens incident was very different than this one. Furthermore, I care about my employees more than the thief. If someone tries to commit a violent robbery (with a weapon), I would like my employees to defend themselves. Now, this is obviously not practical in a restaurant, but in a small retail business? Absolutely. Why do pawn shops, liquor stores, convenience store owners have guns? That logic applies to most small businesses.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

If they were the best qualified candidate and had honestly answered the question as to why they were fired I would not hold it against them. Being fired from a job is not an automatic disqualification. Lying and/or hiding it would be. However, since he brought a weapon to the workplace when he should have not, I most likely would not hire them.



Sounds like a complete joke to me. You don't run social security, criminal or education background checks. You don't check their past employment history. You scream incompetent if you don't think lying on a resume doesn't speak volumes about a persons integrity, an integral part of any job, instead relying purely on your "training".

First, I do run SS and criminal. I may spot check their employment history if something strikes me as odd, but usually I just thrown them on the floor for 10 minutes and see how they do. I can instantly tell if the person know's their stuff or they dont, and their previous employment history is irrelevant. Finally, the applicant assumes the employer will verify employment history, so that they generally don't lie about. I have had people with stellar resumes be complete idiots (like that manager that was selling liquor after 4am to impress me with his numbers) and I have had people from mcdonalds that were excellent.

As for lying on a resume, it's human nature. People badly need a job and will do a lot to get it and improve their chances. I have not seen a resume for a long time that didn't have some sort of omission, lie, or padding on it. It's the nature of the beast.

BTW, to your other earlier comment about these being "low level jobs"..they might not be CEOs, but their duties, abilities and responsibilities far exceed the average "white collar" office cubicle position (not to mention, higher pay.) Just sayin.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Why do pawn shops, liquor stores, convenience store owners have guns? That logic applies to most small businesses.

its not a small business, but a corporation. they care about money, and the liability of one of their employees potentially using deadly force. justified or not, there are liabilities and company policy against it for that reason.

let it be known that i don't agree with it, but i can understand that a company doesn't want someone they employ creating a liability. its obvious that this is a company that doesn't want to employ a man that is willing to violate their policy (no matter how justified the reason) and potentially cost them money.

Originally Posted by roastbeef

its not a small business, but a corporation. they care about money, and the liability of one of their employees potentially using deadly force. justified or not, there are liabilities and company policy against it for that reason.

let it be known that i don't agree with it, but i can understand that a company doesn't want someone they employ creating a liability. its obvious that this is a company that doesn't want to employ a man that is willing to violate their policy (no matter how justified the reason) and potentially cost them money.

Fair enough, but there is a flipside......suppose the robber kills the clerk. The family of the clerk sues the piss out of Autozone for not providing protection and NOT ALLOWING the employees to protect themselves. Again, in this case, the guy was an idiot. The walgreens case is a much better example.

Like I said, a company has the right to fire, so I have no beef here. This guy did a stupid thing by running back in, so he gets no sympathy from me, but as a whole, blame the legal system for allowing a thief to sue an establishment for any consequences he/she faces as a result of the crime, including death. I bet if they passed a law allowing businesses to protect property and staff by any means necessary and they would be immune from criminal and civil prosecution (ie Florida's stand your ground) crime would drop pretty quickly. There would be no getting rich when you take a beating from Costco employees.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Fair enough, but there is a flipside......suppose the robber kills the clerk. The family of the clerk sues the piss out of Autozone for not providing protection and NOT ALLOWING the employees to protect themselves.

A judge would dismiss it as a frivolous lawsuit. So not really.

Once he exited the building he shouldn't have tried to be a hero and go back in. Any good gun owner knows if you can diffuse yourself from any situation like this, you must.

What is the policy on the company if the worker had a shoot out with the robber and worker dies? What type of liability would this company have in this case? Worst case scenario with this is, company pays for the damages and has to compensate for the victims family which the company is responsible for. Where as if the robber did rob the store, company insurance would cover the damage and loss so the company is actually right for doing what they did.

i guess when you own a business it understandable. $$$ liability issues because one wants to be a hero.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

I bet if they passed a law allowing businesses to protect property and staff by any means necessary and they would be immune from criminal and civil prosecution (ie Florida's stand your ground) crime would drop pretty quickly. There would be no getting rich when you take a beating from Costco employees.

Criminals worry about consequences when deciding to commit a crime? Why have we had to execute more than one person then?

The flip side is that the people who are going to steal are just going to start arming themselves to prevent getting a beating.

Or it'll be "store says I can give a beating to a shoplifter, but never trained me how to administer the beating, and I got my ass kicked. I want my million dollars from the store now."

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

Criminals worry about consequences when deciding to commit a crime? Why have we had to execute more than one person then?

The flip side is that the people who are going to steal are just going to start arming themselves to prevent getting a beating.

Or it'll be "store says I can give a beating to a shoplifter, but never trained me how to administer the beating, and I got my ass kicked. I want my million dollars from the store now."

Criminals don't respond to legal consequences, but as gun stats show, violent crime is lower in places where the populace is armed, thats all. Criminals have almost carte blanche because they all know that store policy is "give em what they want."

Originally Posted by Tampa02e46

Once he exited the building he shouldn't have tried to be a hero and go back in. Any good gun owner knows if you can diffuse yourself from any situation like this, you must.

Agree 100%. Based on that, he's lucky. If he went back in, sh!t happened, and he shot the perp, he would be in a world of sh!t. Since he reached safety, going back in was on him.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

A judge would dismiss it as a frivolous lawsuit. So not really.

So in casino's world, a thief gets killed, family wins millions. A clerk gets killed, family gets told case dismissed because it's frivolous...or am I misinterpreting what you are saying?

Originally Posted by Hedges

What is the policy on the company if the worker had a shoot out with the robber and worker dies? What type of liability would this company have in this case? Worst case scenario with this is, company pays for the damages and has to compensate for the victims family which the company is responsible for. Where as if the robber did rob the store, company insurance would cover the damage and loss so the company is actually right for doing what they did.

Deductibles are insanely high. Unless you had a slew of macbooks stolen, you are not going to collect insurance money.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Criminals don't respond to legal consequences, but as gun stats show, violent crime is lower in places where the populace is armed, thats all. Criminals have almost carte blanche because they all know that store policy is "give em what they want."

Yup, and they also have much much lower incentive to act violently.

But, if a store starts issuing a policy that employees can be armed and are allowed to use their weapons in case if emergency, the store is now responsible for training employees on proper/improper use of force and escalation of force.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

So in casino's world, a thief gets killed, family wins millions. A clerk gets killed, family gets told case dismissed because it's frivolous...or am I misinterpreting what you are saying?

Depending on how and where the thief was killed it's quite possible that the clerk could be held liable. I know a former Walmart employee that can tell you all about it.

If a clerk is killed while on the job not due to negligence on the part of the employer then there is no grounds for a civil suit.



And it's not casino's world. It's the real world. I encourage you to visit it.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

Yup, and they also have much much lower incentive to act violently.

But, if a store starts issuing a policy that employees can be armed and are allowed to use their weapons in case if emergency, the store is now responsible for training employees on proper/improper use of force and escalation of force.

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.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

If he went back in, sh!t happened, and he shot the perp, he would be in a world of sh!t.

Just like...dare I say it... Zimmerman's problem. If he would have just left that situation, he would still be living his normal life.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

Depending on how and where the thief was killed it's quite possible that the clerk could be held liable. I know a former Walmart employee that can tell you all about it.

If a clerk is killed while on the job not due to negligence on the part of the employer then there is no grounds for a civil suit.



And it's not casino's world. It's the real world. I encourage you to visit it.

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.