Consequences be damned

[WarMachine]

This man stepped up and did what was needed even if company policy states 0 tolerance. Good on him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2220219.html

[Meister37]

Yep. He did the right thing. Sucks sometimes.

[rexmitchell]

Good for him, I understand the stores policy but it sucks when someone does what is right and is fired over it.

[TheForumGay]

Now go into said autozone, trip and fall, and get your retirement back

[KMac]

Originally Posted by Gearheaded

Now go into said autozone, trip and fall, and get your retirement back

You can do that in the parking lot where they let everybody spill their oil, brake fluid, tranny fluid, coolant, battery acid, etc....where they perform AutoZone-assisted maintenance on their cars. Hell, AutoZone will even give you the tool to help you create an environmental disaster right there on their property. Funny bunch, that AutoZone.

[WarMachine]

If there is a lawyer on the forum that could clear something up. It is up to the employer to provide a reasonably safe work environment. What is the definition of reasonable in this case? No armed guard, unarmed employees. There is always the possibility of an employee getting shot after complying with a thief's demands so what is the liability of the store is that happened?

[R1nStang]

so store policy is "no personal weapons inside the store"...too bad criminals dont follow that rule too....evidently autozone is ok with their employees getting guns pulled on them while they remain defenseless...hmm maybe its time for me to start driving the extra mile to 1.5 miles to go to napa or oreillys

[KMac]

So, According to AutoZone policy of not bringing weapons into their stores, it would have been OK to shoot the thief from the relative comfort and safety of the parking lot. I see no rule saying employee bullets can not enter the store.

[WarMachine]

Originally Posted by KMac

So, According to AutoZone policy of not bringing weapons into their stores, it would have been OK to shoot the thief from the relative comfort and safety of the parking lot. I see no rule saying employee bullets can not enter the store.

that's quite a loophole you've found Kirk

[KMac]

Originally Posted by WarMachine

If there is a lawyer on the forum that could clear something up. It is up to the employer to provide a reasonably safe work environment. What is the definition of reasonable in this case? No armed guard, unarmed employees. There is always the possibility of an employee getting shot after complying with a thief's demands so what is the liability of the store is that happened?

Not a lawyer, but no 2 situations are the same. If this AutoZone had a history or being robbed and still made no proactive attempts to increase security then I'd say they own some liability if something happens to/with an employee.

"Reasonable" is going to be what an eventual jury would end up believing was reasonable. In this case I'd say AutoZone does not want to get this in front of a jury, because:

1. The rule (at least as paraphrased in the article) is vague. What does bring a weapon into the store mean? Does it mean you cannot bring it into the store to carry on you, to put under the counter, etc.... in case of something happening, or does it mean Never, under no circumstances.
2. A jury is more than likely going to consider that the empolyee didn't bring the gun into the store until this particular instance where it was obvious it was warranted; that he had followed the intent of the rule by always leaving his gun in his car.
3. A jury is going to want to side with the guy who saved the day, not the Deep Pockets 800-lb gorilla who is tripping amongst their own bureaucracy.
4. AutoZone's policy may actually be endangering employees.

I'd say the employee would likely end up with a settlement if he pursues this. It is in AutoZone's best interest to do so.

[KMac]

Originally Posted by WarMachine

that's quite a loophole you've found Kirk

It was a rather impressive shot, too.

[WarMachine]

Originally Posted by KMac

Not a lawyer, but no 2 situations are the same. If this AutoZone had a history or being robbed and still made no proactive attempts to increase security then I'd say they own some liability if something happens to/with an employee.

"Reasonable" is going to be what an eventual jury would end up believing was reasonable. In this case I'd say AutoZone does not want to get this in front of a jury, because:

1. The rule (at least as paraphrased in the article) is vague. What does bring a weapon into the store mean? Does it mean you cannot bring it into the store to carry on you, to put under the counter, etc.... in case of something happening, or does it mean Never, under no circumstances.
2. A jury is more than likely going to consider that the empolyee didn't bring the gun into the store until this particular instance where it was obvious it was warranted; that he had followed the intent of the rule by always leaving his gun in his car.
3. A jury is going to want to side with the guy who saved the day, not the Deep Pockets 800-lb gorilla who is tripping amongst their own bureaucracy.
4. AutoZone's policy may actually be endangering employees.

I'd say the employee would likely end up with a settlement if he pursues this. It is in AutoZone's best interest to do so.

I'm wondering if he's pursuing that as an option.

Originally Posted by KMac

It was a rather impressive shot, too.

That it was

[Fikays]

Personally, I disagree with you guys. This guy was stupid.

If he was able to safely get out of the situation, why put yourself back in? While the article doesn't really mention other folks being in the store at the time, he could have potentially made things worse.

The safest and best thing to do in a situation like this is to avoid confrontation.



/and my opinion doesn't apply to all situations; just this one according to the "details" in the article

[JDollaz]

Looks like Rick Ross...

And in the video it states this was the 2nd robbery in same location in the last 2 months by the Same Suspect.

[rexmitchell]

Originally Posted by Fikays

Personally, I disagree with you guys. This guy was stupid.

If he was able to safely get out of the situation, why put yourself back in? While the article doesn't really mention other folks being in the store at the time, he could have potentially made things worse.

The safest and best thing to do in a situation like this is to avoid confrontation.



/and my opinion doesn't apply to all situations; just this one according to the "details" in the article

He was playing the hero role. I agree with you that he could have ran off. Never know what his thoughts were, or what other circumstances were present. Could have been a woman and her kids in the store when this all went down.




Sent from my iPhone using Motorcycle.com App

[Fikays]

Originally Posted by rexmitchell

He was playing the hero role. I agree with you that he could have ran off. Never know what his thoughts were, or what other circumstances were present. Could have been a woman and her kids in the store when this all went down.




Sent from my iPhone using Motorcycle.com App

Exactly, like I said, the details were only as presented and we don't know. Not right now anyway.

It was just a senseless move to get out and then go back in potentially making things worse.

Since this store had been hit previously without any actual incident(also assuming since it was not addressed), potentially escalating this situation on his part is just stupid.

[WarMachine]

Originally Posted by Fikays

Personally, I disagree with you guys. This guy was stupid.

If he was able to safely get out of the situation, why put yourself back in? While the article doesn't really mention other folks being in the store at the time, he could have potentially made things worse.

The safest and best thing to do in a situation like this is to avoid confrontation.



/and my opinion doesn't apply to all situations; just this one according to the "details" in the article

Originally Posted by rexmitchell

He was playing the hero role. I agree with you that he could have ran off. Never know what his thoughts were, or what other circumstances were present. Could have been a woman and her kids in the store when this all went down.




Sent from my iPhone using Motorcycle.com App

I understand, yes he could have avoided the situation and called the popo from outside. It could have been much worse but I don't think he was playing the hero at all. He didn't go in and just blindly shoot the guy disregarding anyone else in the store he tried to hold him at gun point. Fight or flight kicked in and he chose fight, it took a lot of balls to go back in and I applaud him for it.

[cataclyzm123]

If they didn't fire him, it would be the same as condoning his actions. They cannot allow employees to take the law into their own hands. While this man did the right thing, another employee may try to be a hero, but end up hitting innocent people and it would be the company’s fault.

[WarMachine]

Originally Posted by cataclyzm123

If they didn't fire him, it would be the same as condoning his actions. They cannot allow employees to take the law into their own hands. While this man did the right thing, another employee may try to be a hero, but end up hitting innocent people and it would be the company’s fault.

I understand their policy but when did that trump my right to self defense?

Edit: I'm going to use self preservation instead of defense from now on

[KMac]

Originally Posted by WarMachine

I understand their policy but when did that trump my right to self defense?

You still have a right to self-defense, just not a right to be employed at AutoZone.

I agree with Frank about the guy running out of the store, then back in. That was not a good move at all unless somebody int he store was being threatened.....and that doesn't seem to be the case. Putting yourself back in danger is moot, though, because nobody ended up getting shot.