4 WalMart Security Employees Fired For Disarming Shoplifter

if it hasnt been said here yet, it should be metioned; no good deed goes unpunished.

Baaaaa.

My $.02. The suspect went into a closed room with the Asset Protection people. I don't believe that room had a direct door to outside the building. Out came the weapon inside the room to threaten the employees. At that point, letting him go would be into the general public area of the store with a displayed weapon and the possibility of a discharge into a crowd of innocent customers and employees. The possibility of even an accidental discharge is great at this point. How many times have you slipped on a wet floor in a store? Bumped into someone and you or the other person lost your balance? I guarantee the perp would have had a finger on the trigger and been in a high stress position. It's a long ways to the entrance with obstacles between.

In my opinion, they employees deescalated a potentially deadly situation for the safety of the customers and other employees.

Jack House said:

Wal-Mart asset protection staff are expected to confront shoplifters but stand aside if they are armed or threaten them in anyway.

But it has nothing to do with protecting the staff/customers and everything to do with protecting Wal-Mart from liability.

Click to expand...

And be killed like a peasant in front of a samurai? I don't think so.

CENTURIES of written records of warfare and politics dictate that when you are in the immediate presence of an individual and that individual produces a concealed weapon, be it dirk, dagger, sword, or pistol, that you immediately disarm the individual because he has made an implicit threat of deadly force on your life for whatever purposes he may have at that moment. Wars have been started in this fashion.

eye95 said:

No. I imagine that Wal-Mart wanted the four simply to let the shoplifter go. They did not want an armed confrontation inside their store. They would rather risk not being able to find and prosecute the criminal (whose image has surely been captured on video) than risk the attempt to disarm the BG failing and shots being fired.

If that is the policy (it is not unreasonable), then the employees should have followed it or accepted the consequences.

Now, if the BG had given the employees any reason to believe that they were in danger, even if they backed off, that would be different. However, it seems as though the perp would have just walked, with no shots fired, it allowed.

Many businesses have a policy to do what the criminal demands if he has, or says he has, a gun. That is their right to have such a considered policy--and to enforce the policy with sanctions when employees fail to follow it.

Click to expand...

You actually believe that you can not defend your life.......wow How do you know if no shots would have been fired...

Russf said:

You actually believe that you can not defend your life.......wow...

Click to expand...

That is not what I said. I suggest that you reread what I posted. I choose my words carefully. Please use the same care in reading them. Thank you.

Kirbinator said:

And be killed like a peasant in front of a samurai? I don't think so.

CENTURIES of written records of warfare and politics dictate that when you are in the immediate presence of an individual and that individual produces a concealed weapon, be it dirk, dagger, sword, or pistol, that you immediately disarm the individual because he has made an implicit threat of deadly force on your life for whatever purposes he may have at that moment. Wars have been started in this fashion.

Click to expand...

Hey, I agree completely! It's absolute crap that you are prohibited from defending yourself. And I know that if I was in the same situation as those men, with the knowledge that if I act I will lose my job, I would have acted anyway.

Wal-Mart policy on shoplifters for security personnel:

Thought I might clear this up a bit, as it seems to be a sticking point for story here.

The security personnel violated Wal-Mart policy by even accusing the shoplifter. Attempting to detain a shoplifter is usually automatic termination for a Wal-mart employee.

I'm not sure whether the actions of right/wrong that occurred after the situation escalated played any roll in this particular case.

simmonsjoe said:

The security personnel violated Wal-Mart policy by even accusing the shoplifter. Attempting to detain a shoplifter is usually automatic termination for a Wal-mart employee.

Click to expand...

So then I guess this definitely isn't SOP:

Asset protection coordinator Poulsen met him at the door and ushered him back to the loss prevention room to confront him. Not long after, Ray and Richins -- both asset protection associates -- filtered in, followed by Stewart, an assistant manager, to witness.

Click to expand...

By the way:

Corporate lawyers say company policies like the one at Walmart are common in the retail world. They're designed to protect employees and make sure they don't put merchandise ahead of their own safety.

Click to expand...

"Policy, on the other hand, definitely goes ahead of their safety."

They will often ask you to come with them to the LP office, (and they will always call the police on you.) They may softball you a bit(no outright accusation), because most people who meekly follow them to the LP office will immediately break and admit what they did.

Also they will act like they just need to fill out a bit of paperwork or such, giving you false hope that you might walk out without seeing the cops. Its all just to delay for an officer to arrive.

SCREW Walmart

TechnoWeenie said:

Yes, at least they'd have their jobs.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah...and such a great paying job too. What's the minimum wage in the locality where this store was located?

Just one more reason to stay the Hell out of Walmart!!

simmonsjoe said:

Thought I might clear this up a bit, as it seems to be a sticking point for story here.

The security personnel violated Wal-Mart policy by even accusing the shoplifter. Attempting to detain a shoplifter is usually automatic termination for a Wal-mart employee.

I'm not sure whether the actions of right/wrong that occurred after the situation escalated played any roll in this particular case.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true. AP staff are permitted to confront shoplifters. They aren't allowed to directly accuse, but are allowed to confront. Regular employees however are not allowed to do so.

umm?

Jack House said:

Actually, that's not true. AP staff are permitted to confront shoplifters. They aren't allowed to directly accuse, but are allowed to confront. Regular employees however are not allowed to do so.

Click to expand...

that is what I said. Read my other post regarding LP.

I will always resist, my life is to precious to leave it up to the mercy of some scum bag. You put a gun to me, you made your choice. You best pray to what ever God you pray to that I am a poor shot.

I agree that a policy is a policy. Do I think they should be fired? No. But that is not my decision to make.

However,

eye95 said:

Now, if the BG had given the employees any reason to believe that they were in danger, even if they backed off, that would be different.

Click to expand...

You mean other than this reason-

The shoplifter smashed Gabriel Stewart up against a wall. It didn't take him long to realize that pressure against his lower back was from a loaded gun held by a desperate man who didn't want to go to jail. The gunman had a firm grip on Stewart's shoulder, telling him and three of his Walmart co-workers, "Don't make me do this."

Click to expand...

What more does one need? Im wondering what you think is a dangerous situation.

Tucker6900 said:

I agree that a policy is a policy. Do I think they should be fired? No. But that is not my decision to make.

However,

You mean other than this reason-

What more does one need? Im wondering what you think is a dangerous situation.

Click to expand...

Um...the "Don't make me do this," was an indication that the danger was going to evaporate if they let him go. Otherwise, he wouldn't have bothered with the warning and just pulled the trigger.

My point all along has been that they had the legal right to defend themselves, even though the greatest chance of no one getting hurt would be letting the guy leave. Wal-Mart had the right to fire them for exercising judgment exactly opposite to the judgment they were expected to exercise.

In this case, I think Wal-Mart's judgment was spot on: as of the point in time when the BG put the gun in the back of the employee, the greatest probability of no one getting hurt would be to let the BG go.

eye95 said:

In this case, I think Wal-Mart's judgment was spot on: as of the point in time when the BG put the gun in the back of the employee, the greatest probability of no one getting hurt would be to let the BG go.

Click to expand...

Armchair quarterback.

NavyLT said:

Why yes, of course.... certainly you can trust everything a criminal says to you while he has a gun pressed in your back. Why would he lie to you? He's only a criminal holding a gun on you...that doesn't mean he lies....

Click to expand...

Once again, if his intent was to pull the trigger, he had ample opportunity. Having not pulled it, clearly, he just wanted out of there. The wise move (and, coincidentally, Wal-Mart policy) was to let him go.

Once again, though, I am not saying that they did not have the lawful authority to do the foolish thing that they did. I am just defending Wal-Mart's right to have and enforce its policy. Liberty for ALL, ya know.

eye95 said:

I am just defending Wal-Mart's right to have and enforce its policy. Liberty for ALL, ya know.

Click to expand...

No, you are defending the decision to enforce the policy.

They have the right to implement whatever policy they please (well, to a point). I don't believe anybody has suggested otherwise.

That doesn't make it a good idea.

One very interesting issue here is the WHY behind WalMart's policy against detaining shoplifters.

The fact of the matter is that WalMarts margins on sales of their good is so low that they actually MAKE a profit off of people stealing from them. They claim theft losses on their taxes, and it actually means that although they don't make the sale, they STILL technically make money any time a product goes out the door--whether it's rung up at a register or not...

In fact, from a bean-counter point of view, they actually make a slightly HIGHER profit from shoplifted items than items that are actually sold, because stolen items don't tie up their checkout resources.

I'm not excusing WalMart's policies. I think it is disgusting that these brave employees were fired for defending themselves against an armed assailant. They should be getting bonuses, not pink slips.

But from a purely business POV, I can sort of understand WHY corporations would have policies like this.

You just gotta understand the business model, and with WalMart, the ENTIRE business model is so weird and counter-intuitive that it essentially defies "common sense". But it works--for them...