Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: 4 Walmart employees fired after disarming gunman caught shoplifting

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    4 Walmart employees fired after disarming gunman caught shoplifting

    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. "

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    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.
    Last edited by aadvark; 02-10-2011 at 12:35 PM.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    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.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, ,
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by SoLasVegas View Post
    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.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, ,
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    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?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Sounds like a law suit to me.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    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.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    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."

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Hampton, AR
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    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

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by aosailor View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    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.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    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.
    Last edited by since9; 02-17-2011 at 01:26 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •