4 WalMart Security Employees Fired For Disarming Shoplifter

It seems as though Eye95 would be calling for their arrest and execution if their rightful use of force in the defense of their lives was illegal and punished by death.

Not true:

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...

Also not true:

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.

Click to expand...

If the AP sees someone select an item, conceal or consume it, walk past the last point of sale and exit the store, then they can detain them. The amount of force used has to be reasonable, but on more than one occasion I had to redirect people into the store with more than just words. You can't go beating the crap out of people for no reason, but you don't have to just let them walk out if they refuse to comply with you either.

Any time a weapon is involved, you're supposed to just let them go. However, it's still a judgement call. If they're running away and then they turn and pull a gun, yeah, I'd let them go. When a gun was pulled on me and I was literally on top of the guy, I didn't let him go, I removed the weapon from him and thereby removed the threat from myself, my coworkers, and innocent bystanders.

Now, yes, technically there is a policy in place at Wal-Mart governing these types of situations, but the policy isn't that simple. It's not a black and white situation. If I was their manager, I wouldn't have fired them. It would be different if he pulled a gun 20 feet away from them and then they tackled him and took it. I understand Wal-Mart needs to shield itself from liability, but I highly doubt those AP personnel would've gone charging for the next armed shoplifter they encountered. It's a scary situation. You end up just acting on instinct and the gravity of the situation doesn't sink in until its over. I can tell you that after being in a very similar situation, if I have the opportunity to leave the situation without possibility of injury I would. However, I don't care if the guy is "trying to leave" or not, if he's willing to pull a loaded gun out, what makes you so sure he won't use it?

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

He's a criminal, you can't exactly trust his word. For all anyone knows he could have planned on shooting them but realized that doing it with 3 other so close would result in him getting tackled before he could kill the other people. After all, he did say he didn't want to go to jail and pulled a gun. These employees were the best witnesses to put him away, so why not remove them? Or as he's fleeing he could change his mind.

But the simple matter is that you can not trust a criminal. If they were trustworthy then they wouldn't be criminals.

Blueberries said:

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...

Businesses also have a right to refuse service to people carrying guns. Nobody has said otherwise in this thread.

Having the right doesn't make it any less dumb.

Double post

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I hate to say it but no he's right.

Blueberries said:

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...

Walmart has the policy not to fight back simply becuase if there policy was to pick of the heaviset thing they can find and fight back than they would be liable for any injuries or death resulting from thouse actions and whomever they are beating the crap out of would sue and theyd have to pay them as well.
Unfortantly this is the america we live in now a days where you can get millions becuase your coffee didnt come with a idiot label that said THIS S*** WILL BURN YOU.

Shoudl the employees be fired, Yes. The clearly violated the store policy by excercising thier legal right to defend themselves. When I worked at Dominos I carried on deliveries I was advised that it was aginst store policy and If I ever drew I would be fired. BUT it was one of the situations where If I needed to use lethal force I wasnt worried about having a job to come back too.

marshaul said:

Armchair quarterback.

Click to expand...

Um.. Well arnt we all in this thread. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black

marshaul said:

Businesses also have a right to refuse service to people carrying guns. Nobody has said otherwise in this thread.

Having the right doesn't make it any less dumb.

Click to expand...

Like it or not a persons rights over thier property is a consutionally protected right, JUST LIKE the right to bear arms. They have as much right to tell people that they dont want guns on thier property as people have the right to have guns and take them somewhere else and do busniess this isnt a communist country you can shop where ever you like. If you dont agree with a store policy dont support them by not shopping there.

Aknazer said:

He's a criminal, you can't exactly trust his word...

Click to expand...

No, you can't. But his actions are a pretty reliable indicator. If he had fired, you'd be sure that you needed to defend yourself. He didn't. Despite the opportunity, he did not fire. He simply demanded to be let go. I personally would believe that, given those circumstances, the chance of someone being shot is far greater if I try to take the gun than if I let him go.

I'd let him go.

Sc0tt said:

Um.. Well arnt we all in this thread. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black

Click to expand...

Difference is, I'm not second-guessing the judgement calls of those actually present in the situation.

I hope I am never in the presence of this forum hauntin' arm-chair lawyer known as eye95 if 'n when the SHTF. Ok... somebody pulls a gun on you and you're going to follow corporate policy? WHAT? Oh... I can't do this that or the other 'cause some company big-shot in west Podunk wrote these 'rules'. Sorry... but this situation is now attempted kidnapping (that's right) at gun point and assault with a deady weapon. (He was not free to travel... that's kidnapping.) Second guessing a criminal is stupid. Forget Wally World 'policy'... at this point it's personal. The primary objective is self defense to the point of use of deadly force.

Should Walmart have fired them? Hell no. Maybe they'd be better off firing the 'rules writer(s)'. I rarely patronize their stores anyway. Prob'ly less so after this.

Walmart had the right but wasn't right in firing them

1. Wallmart had the right do to their policy.
2. They were wrong for firing them for disarming them as they were protecting themselfs.
3. The criminal could have shot them all and then ran back out into the store and shot more people, or taken hostages if the police arrived.
4. Wallmarts policy encourages crime and supports criminal activity.
5. I would sue wallmart for not having a safe work enviorment, if they have a can't defend yourself policy they should hire armed guards for every isle in the store.
6. I used to shop at that wallmart when visiting family but not anymore. I don't feel like the employees would help me if I was being assaulted.
7. I would give these four guys a job in a heart beat, they are what is right with America. Not a bunch of victims.

I can say this with 25 years as a paramedic, 23 years in the military, and 4 years in law enforcement and working at the Idaho State prison (max). I have seen and understand criminal behavior, I have seen a criminal promis to not harm you and then does even though the victim did everything they asked. Lets hope your never in a situation were your life is in danger and you do nothing but get injured or killed. What would you do if he shots you?.....yell "you promised not to shot me as you die".

DocWalker said:

1. Wallmart had the right do to their policy.
2. They were wrong for firing them for disarming them as they were protecting themselfs.
3. The criminal could have shot them all and then ran back out into the store and shot more people, or taken hostages if the police arrived.
4. Wallmarts policy encourages crime and supports criminal activity.
5. I would sue wallmart for not having a safe work enviorment, if they have a can't defend yourself policy they should hire armed guards for every isle in the store.
6. I used to shop at that wallmart when visiting family but not anymore. I don't feel like the employees would help me if I was being assaulted.
7. I would give these four guys a job in a heart beat, they are what is right with America. Not a bunch of victims.

Click to expand...

1. Agreed

2. as I said before thanks to the government passing laws that protect the insanely idiotic portion of the population we have effectively eliminated natural selection. you don't have to be a smart hard working individual to survive any more you can Sue McDonalds for Hot coffee and win. In order for businesses to survive today they must implement policies to protect them selves. A employee who fights back can sue for injuries sustained, if killed the family can sue and these days even the BG can sue. They had every right to defend themselves but there were consequences for breaking store policy.

3. Not sure what the point here is?

4. No Walmarts Policy prevents lawsuits and keeps them in business, If that was true the same could be said about every business that has a gun busters sign and / or the policy not to fight with an armed BG. These companies are thinking of both employee safety as well as covering their hind end.

5. I would too, however I doubt they'd win. Walmart has a HUGE legal dept.

6. This is almost laughable. Its not the employees job to protect you. That duty falls on you and you alone. The only time you should be dependent on someone else to protect you when in public is when in a business that prohibits weapons. If they take away your right to defend your self they should have measures in place to protect you should the need arise. Walmart (At least here) allows me to carry and defend my self if the need should arise.

7. Agreed. If there were more people like them in America maybe we could have a conciseness rasing. So all Americans could learn there are no guarantees in life, no one owes you anything and there are cost for being lazy and stupid. Instead people sue over everything we must put warning labels on everything, companies must enforce reducilious policies, people exspect the government to hand them everything they need, and there are very few people left in this world that truly understand the way our government was set up to work.

Scott what is it going to be, you can't have it both ways?

Scott,

You can't have it both ways. You say you have to follow policy and not fight back because if you do and get injured then you can sue wall mart. But if you do nothing and get injured or killed you can't sue? This is your argument that if you follow their policy then you can't sue wall mart if you get killed or injured (family sues in event of death).

Your other argument that it isn't wall marts responsibility to give you a safe work environment and protect you if someone is pointing a gun at you while not letting you protect yourself is insane. It is like saying we are going to let these guys beat the crap out of you but you can't fight back, and we are only going to kick your butt for fun. Hey we might even do it every day.

I disagree; you either protect me or let me fight back. If your policy said I can't protect myself and I get hurt than your going to be sued up the wazzoo. Why would anyone shop or work at a place like that, it is equivalent to joining the Army going to Afghanistan and telling you to go fight the enemy but you can't use any weapons or force. Oh and you can't defend yourself. And yes I have been shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as here in the USA while at work.

You know Im not entirely sure you even read my post.

You say you have to follow policy and not fight back because if you do and get injured then you can sue wall mart. But if you do nothing and get injured or killed you can't sue? This is your argument that if you follow their policy then you can't sue wall mart if you get killed or injured (family sues in event of death).

Click to expand...

I was pointing out that Walmart has the policy NOT to fight back simply becuase if their policy said TO fight back it makes them liable for any resulting injuries or deaths. what Walmart Needs is to abolish it, and not have a policy for this. When the policy doesn't say to, or not to, fight back then when they situation arises the employees are free to take what ever action they fell is necessary to ensure their safety without the fear of consequences.

Your other argument that it isn't wall marts responsibility to give you a safe work environment and protect you if someone is pointing a gun at you while not letting you protect yourself is insane.

Click to expand...

It is Walmart's responsibility to provide a safe work environment, however I think that that policy simply covers their own ass more than protects the employees

In my last post I was referring to the fact you said you didn't like shopping in walmart because you didn't fell safe and did not fell like the employees would help you if a BG pulled a gun.
My answer was and still is that it is not a Walmart employees job to disarm a gunman for you. Personal protection depends on yourself and Walmarts at least around here allow you to carry, You are a free person and have to right to shop where ever you want. So if you come to a store that does not allow you to carry you have every right to take your gun, money and business elsewhere.

KSelig said:

Not true:

Also not true:

If the AP sees someone select an item, conceal or consume it, walk past the last point of sale and exit the store, then they can detain them. The amount of force used has to be reasonable, but on more than one occasion I had to redirect people into the store with more than just words. You can't go beating the crap out of people for no reason, but you don't have to just let them walk out if they refuse to comply with you either.

Any time a weapon is involved, you're supposed to just let them go. However, it's still a judgement call. If they're running away and then they turn and pull a gun, yeah, I'd let them go. When a gun was pulled on me and I was literally on top of the guy, I didn't let him go, I removed the weapon from him and thereby removed the threat from myself, my coworkers, and innocent bystanders.

Now, yes, technically there is a policy in place at Wal-Mart governing these types of situations, but the policy isn't that simple. It's not a black and white situation. If I was their manager, I wouldn't have fired them. It would be different if he pulled a gun 20 feet away from them and then they tackled him and took it. I understand Wal-Mart needs to shield itself from liability, but I highly doubt those AP personnel would've gone charging for the next armed shoplifter they encountered. It's a scary situation. You end up just acting on instinct and the gravity of the situation doesn't sink in until its over. I can tell you that after being in a very similar situation, if I have the opportunity to leave the situation without possibility of injury I would. However, I don't care if the guy is "trying to leave" or not, if he's willing to pull a loaded gun out, what makes you so sure he won't use it?

Click to expand...

These forums really need a spoiler tag.

Anyway, it IS possible to get away with tackling shoplifters. But it is still very much against the rules. Anyone below AP should confront shoplifters unless 'deputized' by management/AP. No one should ever chase a shoplifter outside of the store. Yet, at my store an old guy working in Electronics tackled a shoplifter and stood on his chest till the cops arrived. All he got was a 'talking to'. One of the managers, assistant manager I think, actually got into a car chase with a shoplifter once. Chased him out in his car and cut him off, forcing the shoplifter to stop and kept them there till police showed up. He still works at Wal-Mart and is still a manager.

I think we can both agree that what the employees in this story did was more defensible than getting into a car chase or straight up tackling the shoplifter. But as we can see, they got fired anyway, even the manager whom was pure victim(he didn't tackle the shoplifter, he was the one with the gun to his back!).

NavyLT said:

Well, what I have learned is when that beeper goes off at the door on my way out, I'm just going to keep on walking...

Click to expand...

That's what I do. Has happened several times both when concealed and when open carrying. Funny thing, a WalMart employee, probably AP, walked out to the truck while I was loading it (and OCing) and as I was loading I let him see see the receipt so he could see what checker screwed up but he didn't even ask to see what I was loading. We then had a nice chat.

And no, he didn't send the cops to come check me out though I thought they might after he knew which checkout lane I'd used.

When I worked loss prevention (uniformed) I wasn't allowed to do ANYTHING except be a presense. Even if I SAW the thief put the mechandise in his pants I couldn't say anything about it. That didn't mean we didn't have "other means".

We would walk up and say "hello, we have baskets for you to put your merchandise in if you need your hands free". Then we'd be sure to be standing near the door as they approached to leave and when we saw them coming we'd step outside, turn and face the exit, and stand there with a big smile on our faces and watch.....as they walked up to the door, did an about face, and went back into the store to ditch the merchandise.

Worked every time I tried it!

Stealing from the Thief...

Wal Mart's existence is a crime against humanity. Stealing from them is a-ok in my book. They're just as bad as people who draw pay from tax money.

Using this reason to fire them, I really don't care. Any reason, no reason; fire them all.

ixtow said:

Stealing from the Thief...

Wal Mart's existence is a crime against humanity. Stealing from them is a-ok in my book. They're just as bad as people who draw pay from tax money.

Using this reason to fire them, I really don't care. Any reason, no reason; fire them all.

Click to expand...

I don't know why WalMart has such a bad rap. They're actually do a lot of good for humanity, let me just describe a few of the things they do that are GOOD.

1) Their national corporate policy towards firearms is that if it's legal where a store is located, they will not prohibit customer carry. We should be so lucky as that all national chains had such a policy!

2) They create jobs for people, manufacturing the goods they sell. There are those that would call these laborers "exploited" because they make low wages but that is only compared to US wages. Many of the people are paid much better, and have much better working conditions, than if they were not making products for WalMart to sell. So if the "sweat shop" as the feel gooders like to call them has better conditions than the "norm" in a given country, and pays the same or better wages than the "norm" in a given country, HOW IS THAT BAD? It's not, it's just PR from feel gooders.

3) They provide products at a price that is cheaper than most other businesses can provide them. Is that bad for "mom and pop"? Yup, but we live in a FREE MARKET society for the most part, no thanks to all the feel gooders, Keynesians, and other assorted "equity seeking" types out there.

4) They provide jobs to people who WILLINGLY take those jobs. They offer a compensation package that will attract a sufficient number of applicants with the necessary skills and qualifications to keep their employee ranks filled. That is called a MARKET WAGE.

5) The corporation and its employees contribute large sums to many charitable organizations every year.

6) They hire "greeters" who might otherwise have no job. Can you name any other corporation that hires people simply to stand at the door and say "Welcome to ______"? I can't, yet every WalMart has them and they are typically, elderly, "slow", or otherwise impaired people who, without WalMart, might not have any job from which to gain a sense of purpose or a little extra money.


So WalMart isn't an "evil corporation", they're just a corporation. Their "bad rep" comes from merely being a "big target" for unscrupulous attorneys and the fact that ANY organization as large as WalMart is going to have a few issues somewhere within the organization. The mere fact that they continue to allow lawful customer carry in their stores, open or concealed, is sufficient cause for me to continue to shop there.

I have never worked for WalMart in any capacity, I'm simply a business major who sees the facts.

We-the-People said:

6) They hire "greeters" who might otherwise have no job. Can you name any other corporation that hires people simply to stand at the door and say "Welcome to ______"? I can't, yet every WalMart has them and they are typically, elderly, "slow", or otherwise impaired people who, without WalMart, might not have any job from which to gain a sense of purpose or a little extra money.

Click to expand...

Costco does the same thing.

Well, at Costco they pretend to check your membership, which you can avoid (even when I used to be a member I did this to save time) by simply saying one word: "pharmacy". But otherwise it's the same.

Granted, I don't shop at Costco any more due to their anti OC policy. I do buy ammo at Walmart.

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...

ive followed several of your posts and I cant believe some of what you say. If a friend of yours is having a firearm shoved in his back you would just allow it to happen? I guess you take the governments advise of just giving the criminal what they want and hoping they are having a good day and dont kill you? If this man is desperate enough to pull a gun on someone for a simple shoplifting charge, who is to say he isnt desperate or insane enough to use it? I find the acts of these people very brave, and would want them by me if this were to happen to myself. What if he had a mind like any one of the hundreds of psychotics out there that killed just to kill? You cant assume the "perp" would have just walked out, unbelievable...