4 Walmart employees fired after disarming gunman caught shoplifting

[rpyne]

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=14319284

4 Walmart employees fired after disarming gunman caught shoplifting

"The four Layton Walmart employees felt it was mission accomplished. Police officers told them they had done everything right.

"But a week later, all four were fired from their jobs. Walmart said their actions had violated company policy and put their fellow workers and shoppers at risk. "

 

[aadvark]

Layton WAL*MART Company Employees were Right to Stand Their Ground against a Dangerous Felon who was Committing Additional Felonies, in Addition to being a Previous Convicted Felon.
A Utah Court SHOULD Order Comensatory and Punitive Damges against WAL*MART for Firing those Four Courageous Employees for Standing up to Thieves.

Utah Code 34A-5-106(1)(a)(ii)(G) considers otherwise Qualified for Work to '... [A]dhere to Reasonable Rules and Regulations'.

Utah Code 34A-5-107 Provides Remedies at Law for '... [A]ggreived Persons to File Claims as against False or Discriminatory Working Employment Pratices'.

Utah Codes 76-6-601 through 76-6-608 Deal with Criminal Shop Lifting Issues from Merchants, such as WAL*MART, and Contain Affirmative Rules regarding Reasonable Detention by The Merchant under Utah Code 76-6-603.

 

[marshaul]

Sounds like legitimate self-defense in a potentially life-or-death situation.

Wal-Mart really thinks their policy ought to override the right of self-defense, and the exercise thereof?

I fully understand having such a policy, but it just isn't the kind of thing you enforce in a circumstance like this.

Also, being that the right in question is unambiguously that of self-defense, one might question whether Wal-Mart would prefer its employees sacrifice their lives in order to avoid violating the policy?

Policies are great, but the exigencies of a real-life criminal gunman may create scenarios no policy could account for or predict, and equally un-forseeable, but potentially necessary, reactions.

 

[2a4all]

Kudos to the three who took action to save their friend's life. Initially, the 4 employees thought they had the perp surrounded and confined in a small office. When he pulled his gun, he had them trapped, and nobody had a clean exit. Now, what should these 4 people do?

This policy isn't unique to Wal-Mart.

The retail industry in general is gun-shy (no pun intended) about liability from customer and employee work related injuries. Unfortunately, employees aren't provided with adequate training to help them deal with such scenarios.

 

[SoLasVegas]

one might question whether Wal-Mart would prefer its employees sacrifice their lives in order to avoid violating the policy?

Wal-Mart has been known to take out life insurance policies on employees with the corporation as the sole beneficiary.

 

[Grapeshot]

Wal-Mart has been known to take out life insurance policies on employees with the corporation as the sole beneficiary.

Actually that is not an unusual practice, although such is usually reserved for key or principal employees. Partners frequently benefit each other with such agreements.

 

[SoLasVegas]

Actually that is not an unusual practice, although such is usually reserved for key or principal employees. Partners frequently benefit each other with such agreements.

Agreed. Wal-Mart has been found to have policies on some very low-level employees, though.

I actually just put it out there as a tongue-in-cheek response to the supposition that the company would rather the employee sacrifice their own life instead of violating policy. In the case that the company holds a sizable life insurance policy, perhaps they would?

 

[zack991]

Sounds like a law suit to me.

 

[since9]

A company like Wal-Mart would have huge potential liability issues if it's employees started engaging armed shoplifters. Wal-Mart policy is to observe and report. If the situation warrents intervention, they call the police and let them handle it, providing them with multiple camera angles after the fact if the police miss the guy.

 

[rpyne]

A company like Wal-Mart would have huge potential liability issues if it's employees started engaging armed shoplifters. Wal-Mart policy is to observe and report. If the situation warrents intervention, they call the police and let them handle it, providing them with multiple camera angles after the fact if the police miss the guy.

So, you are saying that the other three should have cowered in the corner while the gunman shot their coworker in the back and then likely turned the gun on them?

That line of thinking is right up there with "A woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to the woman standing over the body of an attempted rapist with a smoking gun in her hands."

 

[eye95]

So, you are saying that the other three should have cowered in the corner while the gunman shot their coworker in the back and then likely turned the gun on them?

That line of thinking is right up there with "A woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to the woman standing over the body of an attempted rapist with a smoking gun in her hands."

I would say that, if an employee reasonably feared for life or limb, he should feel free to take lawful self-defense action against the MWAG--with the full knowledge that he will likely lose his job.

However, this is not quite what happened in this instance. The perp indicated that he wanted to shoot no one, that he just wanted to leave. I wasn't there, but I probably would have let him leave, believing that that course of action would have the lowest probability of anyone being shot. However, the folks who were there were the best judges. I just don't know if they really thought there was even a small probability that the man would shoot. So I won't judge their actions.

I just happen to believe in Liberty for All. That includes Wal-Mart.

 

[aosailor]

However, this is not quite what happened in this instance. The perp indicated that he wanted to shoot no one, that he just wanted to leave. I wasn't there, but I probably would have let him leave, believing that that course of action would have the lowest probability of anyone being shot. However, the folks who were there were the best judges. I just don't know if they really thought there was even a small probability that the man would shoot. So I won't judge their actions.

I just happen to believe in Liberty for All. That includes Wal-Mart.

yeah cuz the perp sounded by four guys pulls a gun and says he doesnt want to shoot anybody, I believe him! he seems like an upstanding citizen, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt

 

[eye95]

I would say that, if an employee reasonably feared for life or limb, he should feel free to take lawful self-defense action against the MWAG--with the full knowledge that he will likely lose his job.

However, this is not quite what happened in this instance. The perp indicated that he wanted to shoot no one, that he just wanted to leave. I wasn't there, but I probably would have let him leave, believing that that course of action would have the lowest probability of anyone being shot. However, the folks who were there were the best judges. I just don't know if they really thought there was even a small probability that the man would shoot. So I won't judge their actions.

I just happen to believe in Liberty for All. That includes Wal-Mart.

yeah cuz the perp sounded by four guys pulls a gun and says he doesnt want to shoot anybody, I believe him! he seems like an upstanding citizen, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt

Like I said, I wasn't there. But, based on the way the story was related, I believe that the perp just wanted out. If I was there and believed that, I'd let him go. However, as I also said, the folks who were there were the best judge of whether trying to grab the gun or just let the guy go was the best course of action to minimize the chance of anyone getting shot.

 

[ixtow]

Wal-Mart really thinks their policy ought to override the right of self-defense, and the exercise thereof?

A single Dollar is always and forever, worth more than any human life.

I didn't make the rules, I just know what they are.

 

[since9]

So, you are saying that the other three should have cowered in the corner while the gunman shot their coworker in the back and then likely turned the gun on them?

Oh, hell no.

I've already intervened in Wal-Mart issues, one when a guy who decided not to run out the door with a whopping 3.0 beer simply because he noticed, rather decidedly, I was carrying a firearm, around 2:30 am.

If things ever come to someone sooting other folks "on the spot," then I'll deal with the situation as it presents itselt.

Do you really think police officers have some sort of ubiquitous database they review and train on throughout their careers?

No. We citizens are the first line of defense.