Jack House
Regular Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Um.. Well arnt we all in this thread. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle blackArmchair quarterback.
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.
He's a criminal, you can't exactly trust his word...
Um.. Well arnt we all in this thread. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black
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.
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.
These forums really need a spoiler tag.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?
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...
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.
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.
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.