Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Walmart employees fired after disarming gunman


Hydraglow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Please read the article and share it with friends and family.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705366343/4-Layton-Walmart-employees-fired-after-disarming-gunman-caught-shoplifting.html

 

What do you guys think about this? Is that policy necessary? Should they alter it?

 

Personally, I think employees should be allowed self defense at least, especially when it involves life or death.

Edited by Hydraglow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 21
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

“We appreciate the intentions demonstrated by our associates in this situation, but the actions taken put their safety — and potentially the safety of our customers and other associates — in jeopardy,” Walmart spokesman Dan Fogleman said.

 

Here's my problem. Wouldn't letting the gunman walk out the door and into the store jeopardize the safety of customers and other associates?

Edited by larrygator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why has the wal-mart hate not begun yet?

 

I'm pretty sure most retailers are willing to take small losses in exchange of making a bad situation go away quickly. A $500 laptop won't cost the company nearly as much as an injured (or even dead) employee. If the rules say don't engage someone with weapons, don't do it. As loss prevention guys, I'm sure they knew these rules, and they left themselves open for termination. Most people won't actually use weapons unless provoked, and attacking him is putting yourself, your fellow employees, and the company at risk.

 

Hell yeah I'd fire them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a tough situation for both parties (Wal-Mart & the guys involved).

 

The policy totally makes sense: provoke a guy with a weapon in the store and he is liable to open fire on the patrons and employees. Totally makes sense to let him walk away. That's a pretty standard policy for stores, restaurants, banks, and anywhere else with cash registers. On the flip side, Wal Mart could face just as much trouble giving an armed man free-reign of their store if someone had the ability to stop him and didn't

 

However, I would imagine that when a gun is pointed at you in a backroom of the store...the LAST thing on their minds was what company policy is. Could you imagine being that situation? I imagine that adrenaline and instincts take over and they did what they thought was best given the immense pressure they faced.

 

I imagine this will be settled relatively quick now that it is in the media. Really not fair to blame any party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand the policy of letting an armed person leave in order not to escalate a situation. For example, if the guy was walking out the door and, upon being confronted, produced the gun, then it's pretty obvious that the smart choice is to let him continue his exit. However, letting him go (when he was in the loss prevention room in the back of the store) would have amounted to giving an armed person free reign of the store. I think that these guys made the right decision. I'm rather offended by Walmart's robotic, by-the-book decision to fire these guys. Then again, Walmart isn't exactly known for treating its employees well.

-Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, its bullshit. It'd be one thing if the guy had a gun and was just waving it around running out the door. My issue is that the guy pointed the gun into one of the employee's backs. Self defense is more important than company policy.

 

Things like this is why sometimes I question corporate America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need a hero severance or something... I am sure they will get unemployment if they try to deal with that process. I do think it is a load of crap that they can legally fire them without even paying them for the traumatic event that they had gone through, or the difficulties they are about it go through.. That's the workplace for ya!

 

Edit: Ya know if the robber wasn't buying illegal guns from people he probably would not have to get himself into these situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why has the wal-mart hate not begun yet?

 

Because Wal-Mart is not the juggernaut they were a few years back.

 

Most people won't actually use weapons unless provoked, and attacking him is putting yourself, your fellow employees, and the company at risk.

 

But most shoplifters won't pull a gun when they get caught. Not only is Wal-Mart failing morally for not backing up their employees who made a split-second decision, but they're also failing at loss prevention because they've basically told all their retail employees the following: Don't get involved. Just let thieves take whatever they want.

 

Damn, Wal-Mart still sucks. I wish Costco was closer so I could not renew my Sam's Club membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Wal-Mart is not the juggernaut they were a few years back.

The world's largest corporation isn't a juggernaut anymore? Or are people keeping their mouths shut because of the economy? (maybe paying less for the exact same product isn't a bad idea, and maybe any job really is better than no job with 9-10% unemployment)

 

But most shoplifters won't pull a gun when they get caught. Not only is Wal-Mart failing morally for not backing up their employees who made a split-second decision, but they're also failing at loss prevention because they've basically told all their retail employees the following: Don't get involved. Just let thieves take whatever they want.

I don't think they are saying not to engage a shoplifter, rather, sometimes, it just isn't worth taking the situation any further. You are right, most shoplifters won't even have a gun to pull - thus making the loss of a laptop even more of a rare situation

 

I agree that this is a fairly touchy subject, and I don't totally blame the guys for trying to fight back - but "rules are rules". IMO, fighting back is the last thing one should do when getting robbed, especially if you KNOW he has a gun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world's largest corporation isn't a juggernaut anymore?

 

Largest by what? Certainly not market cap. Anyway, that was a poor choice of words on my behalf. My point is that Wal-Mart is a whole lot less sinister seeming now because they are, much like Microsoft, on the defensive now. They've got stiff competition from Target for upmarket discounters and competition from the dollar stores in low end discounting. That and their wholesale business, Sam's Club, is inferior in every conceivable way (customer service, niceness/cleanliness of the stores, quality of the merchandise) to Costco. A few years ago, Wal-Mart seemed invincible. Now, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true - world's largest revenues, for sure. I guess calling them the "world's largest company" was too vague. Also, I love Target, but haven't they been relatively flat over the past few years (just now recovering from the 08 collapse) whereas Wal Mart has still grown through the recession? Of course, this could be due to their overseas growth over the past decade, for all I know. I agree that Costco is awesome too.

 

I find Wal Mart to be possibly the most fascinating company in the world. For good or bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why has the wal-mart hate not begun yet?

 

Because Wal-Mart is not the juggernaut they were a few years back.

 

Most people won't actually use weapons unless provoked, and attacking him is putting yourself, your fellow employees, and the company at risk.

 

But most shoplifters won't pull a gun when they get caught. Not only is Wal-Mart failing morally for not backing up their employees who made a split-second decision, but they're also failing at loss prevention because they've basically told all their retail employees the following: Don't get involved. Just let thieves take whatever they want.

 

Damn, Wal-Mart still sucks. I wish Costco was closer so I could not renew my Sam's Club membership.

 

 

How are they failing at loss prevention? do you REALLY think they are going to tell their workers to try and keep the robber from stealing, if it means risking people's lives? it's so much easier to just have a one time loss that probably won't even affect them, than to have people get shot at in their store.

Honestly, fighting back with an armed robber over something like that is just stupid, and not fair for the other people who choose to be safe and let the robber leave. it's not like one robbery is going to set WALMART back at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one key difference making this situation unique is the fact they were in a back room.

 

I would guess the intent behind the rule is to be safe in "stick-em-up" situations where a armed robber enters the store and demands money/merchandise/etc on the store floor. In that case it's obvious to everyone that the safe thing to do is give them what they want.

 

The line gets blurred when you're talking about an armed man you had detained in a back room.

Edited by Jew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would put it like this....Either the people who worked for walmart wanted to be heros, or they take their job really, really, really seriously. In other words, even though they were brave, it doesn't exactly mean they had a good reason to fight back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as this is messed up, it's not that uncommon for a work place to terminate or suspend someone. My work someone didnt stop told the supervisor and let the guy walk out the door. He did everything by the book and got suspended for it. Luckily he got his job back. So my point is that Walmart probably would have fired them anyway for not stopping him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one key difference making this situation unique is the fact they were in a back room.

 

I would guess the intent behind the rule is to be safe in "stick-em-up" situations where a armed robber enters the store and demands money/merchandise/etc on the store floor. In that case it's obvious to everyone that the safe thing to do is give them what they want.

 

The line gets blurred when you're talking about an armed man you had detained in a back room.

 

That is definitely true. It wasn't a situation like a lot of people are saying. The gunman didn't pull out the gun until they were all in a small back room with a closed door. He had been caught shoplifting and was taken to a back room. They had no idea he had a gun until they were all in the room. At that point, the guy pulled out the gun and said "don't make me do this." At that point it became a much more deadly situation. If he had ran in with a gun and held up the store I highly doubt the employees would have gone after him. However, after he was detained and then pulled the gun on them in very close quarters, the situation become highly dangerous. I would have done exactly the same thing. When you have someone detained and they pull a gun out the situation becomes a game of life and death. You have no clue if this is just some scared individual or an escape felon who will not be taken back to jail. At that point, you can't take a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/