AutoZone Employee, Fired After Stopping Robber With His Own Personal Weapon

[Glassunion]

After AutoZone employee Devin McClean stopped a serial thief from robbing the local auto parts store in York County, Virginia, some hailed him as a hero, but not the head honchoes at AutoZone. They saw McClean's actions as a reason for termination.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/devin-mcclean-autozone-employee-fired-robbery_n_2220219.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

“If I can save somebody’s life, I put that way above a store policy,” says McClean.

http://wtkr.com/2012/11/30/autozone-employee-fired-after-taking-action-against-fake-beard-bandit/

I feel he acted properly.

[southernyankeebelle]

1. Autozone probably worries more about being sued than catching someone who

robs the store.

[Eleanors38]

2. AutoZone? Meet Papa John. You'll find him on...

my list of businesses who don't need my money.

[upaloopa]

4. If businesses did not allow guns in their stores and gunners

refused to shop there I would say it would be a victory for the rest of society.

[Eleanors38]

7. The policy didn't affect the thug, did it?

But you seem little concerned about the thug's opinion of Autozone's gun-free policies.

[upaloopa]

11. I'm not going to play your bull shit games anymore

You just can't comprehend that most of us don't like having your guns around us.
I don't expect you to care either so it is a waste of te talking about it.
And you can quit defining me and what I think.

[Eleanors38]

14. In my time in this group/forum, the folks most dug-in

Regarding change seem to be the prohibitionists. I suppose because it is the most conservative and reactionary outlook.

I am not your enemy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. It many of us who tire of yours

Form a rational argument, something other than emotion based screeds

[PavePusher]

23. Here's where YOUR bullshit games fail:

The lawful guns are not the problem.

[mike_c]

26. so this guy used an otherwise "lawful gun" to violate the terms of his employment...

End of story. It appears that he was aware of the policy, and made a conscious choice to violate it, presumably because he thought his gung-ho approach was somehow "better" than the terms under which he was employed.

In a broader sense though, I disagree with you that the "lawful guns are not the problem." The issue is that lawful guns, like dormant viruses, are always on the verge of becoming a problem. Every UNLAWFUL gun that is a problem was once a lawful gun, and they can go from lawful to unlawful in the blink of an eye, and often do. Especially when we warp morality all out of proportion to try and keep violent behavior "lawful," as in SYG laws that legitimize lethal force to solve minor interpersonal problems.

But that's not really the point of this thread, so I won't go there. Autozone cowboy violated the terms of his employment, which he understood, so there really isn't much more to add. I'm sure you agree, being a rule abiding lawful gun owner and all.

[ManiacJoe]

27. The sad part is that the employee had to choose

between following company rules and protecting his coworkers.

[mike_c]

33. no he didn't have to choose....

That's what some folks in this thread seem not to understand. He was hired under specific terms of employment that prohibited employees from bringing guns to their workplace. His only "choice" occurred when he took the job-- he chose to abide by the terms of his employment. At least until he didn't and then his employment was terminated.

[dballance]

55. Protecting his co-workers??? Seriously? All he did was endanger them.

I wish everyone would stop with the idolization of this guy. All he did by getting his gun was further endanger his fellow workers and any customers who might have been in the store.

Do you not realize that simply letting them have the money and letting them go away was the most safe option for all involved?

Pulling a gun on a criminal who has a gun does nothing but make the situation more dangerous. If either he or the criminals started firing their guns this would be a much different story and set of headlines.

The best thing he could have done to protect his co-workers would have been to hand the criminals the money and let them leave the store.

This fact is probably one of the reasons Autozone has a "no guns" policy. They're smarter than this one individual.

[DonP]

72. "hand the criminals the money and let them leave the store." That works every time.

It really worked for the 5 women at Lane Bryant in Tinley Park and the employees at Brown's Chicken amd how many others that follow that advice.

Oh, wait they were all shot dead after they gave up the money.

If you want to believe that "all they want is the money", be my guest and trust you or your family's or fellow employees to the tender mercies of a guy that decided to use a gun to take anything he wants.

With any luck he may forget that you are a witness to his crime and not shoot you in the back of the head to stay out on his third strike.

But I'm sure you can show us plenty of examples of where the CCW permit holder shot the place up killing bystanders and other innocents?

[dballance]

73. Well, I believe that you are mostly wrong - Never said it works "every time"

I'm sorry the 5 women at a Lane Bryant store got shot or killed and that employees at Brown's Chicken suffered the same fate. NO, I didn't say it works "every time." to just give up the money. Criminals, by definition, are not nice people. Some are worse than others.

You offer two instances where things went horribly wrong. Around 6,000 robberies/burglaries happen every day in the US. So two over an unstated time period is a rather small percentage of that despite the fact those two were horrible.

Do you advocate a wild west mentality where people should be armed and ready to fire upon criminals? How many people in that 6,000 a day do you think are actually well-trained in the use of fire arms and should be brandishing them against criminals? There is nothing in my background that would prevent me from getting a concealed carry permit and then a semi-automatic handgun. But I can assure you I am totally unqualified to own and operate such a weapon.

I read on an all too often basis that some idiot gun owner who has a valid permit shoots themselves or someone else because they forgot there was a round in the chamber. This makes me question the qualification of people to have a permit and own a weapon. Even Scalia has implied we could put restrictions on guns even given the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps we should require training and gun safety courses???

So despite your sensationalist melodrama that all robbers are going to shoot you in the back of the head so you can't ID them later it's just not based in reality. There is a far, far cry between robbery and murder and most, not all, criminals know that. Especially these days when a live witness is not always necessary given the number of security cameras around. There are still states where you get the death penalty for being convicted of murder. Criminals know that.

The killings typically happen when some John Wayne wannabe comes out brandishing a firearm and challenges a criminal with a firearm. We all know you don't back a wild animal into a corner because unpleasant things will likely happen. Well the same thing applies to a criminal with a gun. Challenge him or her with your own gun and you've just raised the event from passive people handing over the money to a confrontation with two people with guns. Yep, that's going to work out well.

[PavePusher]

75. While this may not be what you intend to mean....

your post comes across as "a few deaths of innocents is the price we have to pay for safety", completely ignoring the internal contradiction, irony and hypocracy.

The rest of your post is unsubstantiated assertions that do not bear up to scrutiny.

[dballance]

81. Once again you are wrong

Go search on the stats I quoted. I didn't make them up.

How you can possibly think my post supports the death of a few innocents as the price for safety is absurd. I was merely pointing out the number of robberies that go horribly wrong or where the psycho robber starts executing people vs. the number of robberies where they snatch the cash and run is very small.

As I've said. Banks teach their tellers to just hand over the cash and not confront or challenge the robber. There is a very logical reason for that. It's much safer for them to just let the cash go than to do something that might escalate the situation into a fight where employees and customers are endangered.

I'm missing the part where you're making logical arguments to refute my "unsubstantiated assertions that do not bear up to scrutiny." If you want to throw a statement like that out there then you bear the responsibility of substantiating it.

[PavePusher]

82. If "every" robbery/burglary was meet with armed resistance....

I doubt there would be 6000/day.

As for being "totally unqualified to own and operate such a weapon", it's a very easy skill to learn. If you have even modest hand/eye co-ordination, a few hours of instruction, and a few hours/month of practice are all you need for self-defense. That's one of the things that make firearms so efficient and desireable for that purpose. Self-defense does not require Secret Agent levels of firearm prowess.

Banks simply want to avoid lawsuits. New employees are cheaper than fighting stupid, frivilous money-grubbing suits in court.

[dballance]

83. Again, you provide no cogent arguments to rebut mine

There are 6,000 robberies a day. Doubt it all you want but then go search for the stats.

Saying I'm wrong does not make it so. You have to provide stats, or studies to support your position.

Will there be a time when you can find some arguments and stats to support your position? I've provided them for my position.

So admitting that I'm not qualified to own and operate a weapon despite the fact I can easily buy one as an example of how it's most likely tons of people who get permits, get weapons and then get no training whatsoever on how to use those weapons makes me an ass in your universe how? Are most of those people dangerous given their lack of training? Yes.

No, I never said people need "Secret Agent" levels of training. Where you pulled that out of your ass amuses me. In fact, I never suggested in any of my posts that people who buy firearms should be required to have training. But now that you mention it, it seems like a rather sane and good idea.

We make people take a driver's test or driver training before getting a driver's license. That makes sense to most of us since granting a license usually means granting a person the legal ability to drive around a several thousand-pound vehicle that, if not operated properly, can kill or maim others.

But in complete repudiation of all logic we hand firearms to almost anyone who wants to buy them. Despite the fact they can maim or kill. And with those hundred-round magazines they can kill on an unprecedented scale some drunk or drugged-out idiot driving a car can't approach.

If every person who purchased a firearm was required to take those "few hours of instruction and a few hours/month of practice" then I'd be a lot more comfortable with so many people having guns. BUT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GET ANY TRAINING. Any idiot with a clear background check and enough money can buy a gun. Then they can play John Wayne at the first instance of a perceived threat.

[PavePusher]

88. I'll give you this, you know how to dodge around and attempt misdirection.

I never said there weren't 6K robberies/day.

I never said you were an ass.

Many people grow up being trained in gun use. Some don't. Training is good. But I don't think Constitutional Rights can be predicated on it as a prerequisite. Unless you want to show me proof of your First, Fourth Thirteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendment training...?

Driving is not a Constitutional Right. Cars have a minimum of six infinitely variable controls that must be operated in unison for safe conveyance. Guns have, at most, three on/off switches required for any use. Cars have several orders of magnitude more potential and kinetic energy (which is what makes both items useful, and dangerous with negligence).

We sell cars to anyone with cash, not even a background check required from licenced dealers. No training required. And they also require, by law, very little competence to obtain permission for use in public.

So, in fact, it's actually easier to buy a car, and about equal for use in public.

Net win for cars, I guess.

[dballance]

92. In response to my post about 6,000 robberies per day

You posted my arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. Therefore you implied my stats don't stand up to scrutiny. Don't try to wiggle out of it just because you didn't say it specifically.

I find your assertion that "you know how to dodge around and attempt misdirection" both insulting to me and embarrassing for you since you've yet to provide any stats or links to studies that support your arguments.

As for "misdirection" you're taking the cake on that with your whole screed in this post about driving not being a constitutional right and so on rather than actually providing an argument to rebut me. I never said driving was a right and have come out rather firmly in support of the 2nd Amendment in my posts.

I simply tried to compare and contrast how we treat two things that can have dangerous implications for society so differently.

You are so making my point for me. "We sell cars to anyone with cash, not even a background check required from licenced dealers. No training required. " Just like we sell guns to people at gun shows who have cash and not even a background check required. "... not even a background check required from licenced dealers. No training required. And they also require, by law, very little competence to obtain permission for use in public." In both cases it's quite a detriment to society to allow incompetent people to have a gun or a car.

[oneshooter]

90. So in your educated opinion what would be the minimum of training needed?

[dballance]

91. I Don't have an "educated opinion" on that because I'm not qualified to have one.

And I never said I did.

I'm sure I could do some research and find the opinions of people who are qualified.

[oneshooter]

95. So what is your "uneducated" opinion should be the minimum training to obtain a CHL.

[dballance]

96. My Uneducated opinion is

since I don't feel I have an educated opinion I shouldn't offer one at all.

Perhaps it is hard for you to understand there are topics on which I understand I am not qualified to pontificate and I know that so I'll do my best to shut up and try to read and understand what people who might be qualified to comment have to say.

So sorry, you are not going to draw me into some debate where I know I shouldn't debate.

I think it would be a lot nicer world if people admitted they are unqualified to have an opinion on certain topics because they don't know the facts or have the education and, therefore, should not offer an opinion. Yes, we may all have opinions but they don't necessarily need to be aired on the internet and taken and promoted by some others as gospel.

That's what I'm trying to do.

[oneshooter]

97. I thank you for your honesty.

[Sherman A1]

79. Did he or did he not violate company policy?

that is the real question surrounding his termination.

You may not agree with that policy and you have every right not to. That said the employer has a right to establish work rules and policies for the employees which they choose to hire. Should an employee elect to not follow those policies the employer has a right to discipline those employees.

If it was a policy of the company to not allow employees to carry weapons and he chose to ignore it, he was guilty of insubordination and he chose to terminate his employment by doing so.

The employer is well within their rights to set conditions of employment.

It is that simple.

[sarisataka]

28. Would you agree or disagree

with his statement

“If I can save somebody’s life, I put that way above a store policy,” says McClean

[mike_c]

34. whether I agree or disagree is immaterial....

I wasn't his employer, and he didn't agree to MY terms of employment. He agreed to abide by Autozone's terms and conditions of work. Then he violated them.

[sarisataka]

36. Nice dodge

but seems to lean towards workplace rules trump life.

if you read the article correctly, he was not carrying while working. He had to go out to his vehicle to retrieve his gun- something the law does allow, keeping your gun in your vehicle at work- then entered and stopped an armed felony in progress. So in the most technical sense he did bring a weapon into the workplace. That seems to make more sense than waiting until the robber shoots someone before coming in- or would that still be cause for termination; he should wait until the shooter comes out...

[Sherman A1]

87. He brought a weapon into the work place

and violated his terms of employment...

Game over.

[AlexSatan]

43. Just to clarify

Do you support all terms of employment that all businesses have or do you think some should be changed?

I don't think anyone is arguing AutoZone doesn't have the legal right to fire him.

[mike_c]

46. I'm a union member and an officer in my union....

Of course I don't "support all terms of employment that all businesses have." Part of my professional work is negotiating changes to my own terms and conditions of work. Nonetheless, when such terms are in force, I am bound to abide by them whether I agree with them or not-- or face justifiable termination.

[AlexSatan]

47. Of course

However, this discussion is not about whether AutoZone's rules are in effect but whether they SHOULD be or not.

AutoZone has the flexibility to change their rules or even make an exception.

[dballance]

56. That's the biggest bunch of BS. I hope Autozone doesn't fold and give his job back.

He did nothing but make a situation MORE dangerous to his co-workers and customers by bringing in a weapon.

There is a reason banks teach their tellers to just give a robber the money and let them go away. It's because it doesn't escalate a robbery into an armed confrontation that would endanger the tellers and customers.

Pulling a gun on a robber with a gun only sets up a situation that could escalate into a gun fight endangering workers and customers.

So what if a robber gets away with a few hundred or even several thousand dollars? Is that more important than making sure workers and customers don't get killed or injured by flying bullets?

[sarisataka]

63. My question is more about absolutes

the general trend is that in no case whatsoever should he have brought the gun in. He could have stood by, watched his fellow employees be murdered and have been a good employee. If he stepped in to save one, fired.

I realize that did not come to pass and I have more than one problem with his actions. I can agree that the confrontation was not needed; let the police take over.

My point is when is an employee justified in violating company policy for a greater good?

[dballance]

66. Let me repeat. That's a bunch of "what if"

Yes, in no case whatsoever should he have brought in a gun. That's a pretty solid policy, not dependent on "what if" scenarios such as you suggest.

Would it have been horrible if the robbers started executing his co-workers - yes. However, that's a very rare scenario and the company did the best they could by making policy based on what happens the majority of the time. Not in those horrible instances you suggest. There is no way a company can plan for every possibility. We all accede to this type of reasoning every single day. We don't prevent people from having guns and knives because a small percentage of the time they are used for illegal purposes. And that's the right thing to do. We don't prevent people from having automobiles because they can be stupid and cause accidents. We trust that the majority of the time people are responsible and will do the right thing.

By your own line of reasoning he could have started firing and perhaps his stray bullets might have hit customers or other employees. Or the bullets of the robbers in response to his firing on them might have hit his co-workers or customers. How that would be a "greater good" than just letting the robbers get away with petty cash and not endangering anyone further by having a shoot out baffles me.

Remember, a bullet knows no loyalty. It simply does what is its purpose. To maim or kill regardless of whether you are the bad guy or the good guy.

[sarisataka]

68. Fair enough

I feel there are situations where policy gets trumped.

As for 'what ifs'- that is most of the criticism against him. He could have escalated, they could have had a shootout, somebody could have been hurt... but that didn't happen either. Did he get away with one, yes. Was he lucky, yes. Did the armed robber run away, as many maintain would never happen, yes. Next time a robber is confronted will it end well, TBD.

Could the company have made an exception to their policy, while clearly stating they do not condone a repeat of this or had a closed door meeting with their employee and police to see if an exception is justified- that would have been possible too.

I have an instinctive dislike of 'zero tolerance' policies. It leads to zero thinking and hiding behind bureaucracy. It makes schools say a deaf boy needs to change his name because in sign it looks too much like a gun.

Now to lower our respective blood pressure, these two statements are some of the best I have seen from either the pro or anti side:

We don't prevent people from having guns and knives because a small percentage of the time they are used for illegal purposes. And that's the right thing to do. We don't prevent people from having automobiles because they can be stupid and cause accidents. We trust that the majority of the time people are responsible and will do the right thing.

Remember, a bullet knows no loyalty. It simply does what is its purpose. To maim or kill regardless of whether you are the bad guy or the good guy.

Dinner time. A peaceful night to you

[Glassunion]

70. I think you meant deaf.

You freaked me out for a second.

[sarisataka]

71. Thanks

I'm glad I hit update before logging off

[dballance]

74. Well thank you for a good, honest debate

I appreciate that we have differences of opinion.

I will most certainly agree with you about "zero tolerance" policies. I think they are not in the best interest of a corporation, its workers or schools and their teachers and students. Managers/Teachers/Principals on the ground where crap really happens need to have discretion to do what is right based on the facts and situation. It's never as black and white as zero-tolerance would have us believe.

I totally understand your desire to help the guy keep his job and ask the company to make an exception. I feel for him and I think it was an honest effort on his part to do what he thought would protect others.

But how do they ensure he doesn't whip out a gun again because he has been indirectly rewarded for doing it once already? He really just endangered other people. The next time might end up with bullets flying and several people injured. We don't want another Columbine or Aurora theatre incident.

Thank you for quoting me where I come out on the side of it's okay to own a gun. I'm rather flattered. I'm not anti-gun at all. I'm just for responsible gun use.

A peaceful night to you as well. I look forward to reading your posts in the future. And I'm happy to spar any time.

[Glassunion]

69. I have a question

Could you specify "rare" in your statement: Would it have been horrible if the robbers started executing his co-workers - yes. However, that's a very rare scenario and the company did the best they could by making policy based on what happens the majority of the time.

Do you know how often a victim of robbery ends up the victim dead?

[Spryguy]

37. I like that!

"Auto Zone Cowboy"- I'll have to use that with death spewers

Next job he works at maybe he'll learn not to violate company policy and put his co-workers at risk by toting.

[dballance]

57. +1000

Totally agree. Why this asshole, John Wayne, wannabe is being idolized for endangering himself, his co-workers, and customers is beyond me.

[sylvi]

84. When you're looking down the barrel of a gun

When you're looking down the barrel of a gun, one of the last things on your mind is whether or not you're going to keep your job. You're thinking about whether or not you're going to survive the encounter, and a half-dozen or so possible sequellae race through your mind over a matter of a few seconds.

So no, I don't think a similar situation at another job is going to make him act any differently because he "learned not to violate company policy". We're talking about him taking an action he thought would save his own or someone else's life, not copping a nap in the broom closet.

Hopefully, someone familiar with this story with a little more empathy than Auto Zone will hire him soon, maybe with better pay and benefits. One can hope.

[JoeyT]

38. So you feel the same way when first responders

are punished for risking their lives in a way the insurance company finds unacceptable, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002909508

What about when a company has a policy of non-interference in the event of an emergency and an employee gets in trouble for or prevented from stepping over that line?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2121733

[mike_c]

42. I'm not going to comment on an increasingly fantastic series of "what ifs..."

...that substitute what you want to believe for what I actually said.

So, you're in favor of drowning kittens while slobbering hordes of Nazi zombies rape your grandmother....

Sure, why not?

[JoeyT]

49. WTF? Increasingly fantastic?

Did you look at the links? Those were things that actually happened. That kind of prevents them from being increasingly fantastic.

[mike_c]

50. neither were directly relevant to this incident....

Neither involved guns, for example. The person in the OP was not a first responder of any stripe. And so on. The question was a RED HERRING, and attempted to divert the discussion onto a different topic. I joined this thread to talk about the OP, not some increasingly disconnected series of separate events, real or imagined, that were not relevant to this event at Autozone.

There, feel better now?

[JoeyT]

53. Special pleading.

Do you support an employer's right to terminate an employee for going to the aid of others or not. It's a yes or no question.

Guns aren't illegal, neither is self defense, so special pleading that "OMFG GUNZ!" doesn't work here.

[mike_c]

59. it's not a simple yes or no question at all-- it's another red herring....

As I mentioned up thread, I'm a chapter officer and my union chapter's grievance officer. That means it's my job to enforce our contract with our employer, which describes the terms and conditions of work in our workplace. Maybe it's that experience that makes it difficult for me to make blanket pronouncements of the sort you're asking for. A contract is only as good as its enforcement.

First, however, let's dispense with the red herring about whether or not "going to the aid of others" is the issue here. This employee left his workplace-- and any threat to himself-- went to his car to retrieve a weapon, returned to his workplace with the gun in violation of his terms of employment, and then engaged the thief without regard for the safety of his fellow workers. The appropriate response, once he himself was safely removed from the situation, would have been to call 911 and summon the police. By trying to be a cowboy himself he risked making the situation MUCH more dangerous for everyone concerned. Once he was outside, the best way to aid the others was to call the police and let them handle it. That's what they're trained to do.

You're right-- his gun was apparently legal, and so is self defense. But once he returned to his car, he no longer needed to defend himself, so returning to the store with a gun was not self defense at all. It was cowboy vigilantism.

Instead of doing the right thing, he made the classic mistake that defines why private gun ownership has led to so much violence in the U.S. He figured "I've got a gun, so I can handle this here and now, by myself." That's the thought that has led to almost as much tragedy in this country as the classic "hold my beer and watch this." You can't push me around because I've got a gun. And turn that damned music down!

But back to your specially pleaded question. I believe that when we accept the terms of work offered by an employer we are bound to abide by them if we don't want to risk being terminated for not complying. We don't have to agree with them. Most importantly, we don't even have to comply with them-- as someone noted below, they're workplace policies, not divine law. God knows I violate my employer's rules often enough, sometimes just to be more productive. But no, I don't think it's unreasonable to be terminated if my employer finds out-- especially if violations have strong potential to cause tragedy. I know my contract pretty well. I make choices every day about whether to abide by it, but when I choose to ignore it I risk justifiable termination. And I'm fully aware of that.

I'm not going to defend this guy's actions because I honestly think he made poor choices that put his coworkers and himself at greater risk than if he had called the police. But I'll also admit that I think gun ownership and gun violence are among the most enduring social problems this country has.

[JoeyT]

67. I wasn't aware he'd gone out to his car

and returned. That puts him on pretty shaky ground.

I can certainly grasp the violating rules to be productive: I think pretty much everyone does that.

[PavePusher]

40. "conditions/rules of employment" are not "laws".

The employee did nothing unlawful.

Autozone arguably did several things immoral and unethical, starting with inadequete security. The concept that some people would then provide their own security seems to vex you. I wonder why?

[mike_c]

41. of course not....

I never said he did anything illegal. I said he violated the terms of his employment, and that his termination was reasonable. Termination of employment does not equal arrest.

[dballance]

54. Inadequate Security? Are you serious?

I could see having guards and high security if Autozone was a high-cash transaction business like a pawn shop. Or like a jewelry store where it's easy to get lots of high-dollar items in one display case. Or a gun shop where the weapons would have a high re-sale value on the black market.

But Autozone??? Did you want them to provide armed guards to protect the air filters and spark plugs? As long as they had security cameras they were doing what is reasonable in their retail segment. Frankly I can't believe the criminals hit a store that likely had little cash in its registers. I would guess most people who shop at Autozone use debit or credit cards - not cash. I bet it would be pretty low-yield for cash.

So tell me what Autozone did that was immoral and unethical? They have a stated employment policy of no guns. He broke the employment rules. And not a simple rule like don't take batteries or paper clips from the supply room which would deserve a slap on the wrist and some sort of probation. He brought a deadly weapon into the store.

He could have caused the situation to escalate into a shootout between him and the criminals. That would most certainly have endangered other workers and customers. It could have gotten someone killed or seriously injured since bullets don't know the difference between the bad guys and innocent bystanders. Seems to me their policy is quite ethical, moral and sensible.

The prudent thing to do was let damned criminals have the money and then let the police pursue the matter. Not play John Wayne and start brandishing a firearm. I sincerely doubt whatever petty cash was in the cash drawers of the store would be worth the life or lifelong injuries someone might have incurred if the situation had escalated into a gun fight.

Just because he "won" this time doesn't mean he would the next time. Autozone was absolutely right in terminating a loose cannon who endangered himself and others.

[gejohnston]

58. I agree with you to a point

As long as he takes the money and runs, I'd just give a good description to the cops. I'm not going to risk getting in a shoot out over a corporation's money.
I would slip out and call the cops, but would not return as long it was about the money. If the robber decided to start herding everyone to the back or harming anyone, then return with the gun.

[dballance]

60. Boy that's a bunch of "what if."

I think it's probably rare that robbers herd people into the back room and start harming them unless they have larger objectives than a simple robbery. Then they must be re-classified as terrorists. I believe the most common robbery is just all about the quick cash for the robber's next drug fix or some other nefarious reason.

Terrorist events are on a completely different scale. However, I still do not think that people who are not trained in how to handle these events should go get their guns and start waving them around. I'd like to think I'm smart enough to know I'm not qualified to negotiate with a terrorist so if I go get my gun I'm probably making the situation worse.

As I've said in other posts. Autozone was absolutely right to terminate this guy. He had no authority to go get his gun and try to be a police officer. All he did by bringing another gun into the mix was further endanger his co-workers and any customers. Robbers who are unchallenged usually just take the money and run. By showing up with a gun to challenge them he set up a confrontation that could have gotten him or others killed.

He should most certainly have been terminated.

[gejohnston]

61. I didn't say otherwise

I think it's probably rare that robbers herd people into the back room and start harming them unless they have larger objectives than a simple robbery. Then they must be re-classified as terrorists. I believe the most common robbery is just all about the quick cash for the robber's next drug fix or some other nefarious reason.

Probably is rare, but not unknown. Post robbery executions do happen. I'm not saying that would have happened in this case, I simply included that caveat as the only reason I would do anything other than call the cops and be a good witness. Most are economic crimes, although execution after robbery has more to do with sociopathy, but not terrorism.

Terrorist events are on a completely different scale. However, I still do not think that people who are not trained in how to handle these events should go get their guns and start waving them around. I'd like to think I'm smart enough to know I'm not qualified to negotiate with a terrorist so if I go get my gun I'm probably making the situation worse.

Terrorists don't attack Autozone. Planned Parenthood maybe, but not Autozone. DoD defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political."

As I've said in other posts. Autozone was absolutely right to terminate this guy. He had no authority to go get his gun and try to be a police officer. All he did by bringing another gun into the mix was further endanger his co-workers and any customers. Robbers who are unchallenged usually just take the money and run. By showing up with a gun to challenge them he set up a confrontation that could have gotten him or others killed.

I didn't say Autozone didn't. I simply said what I would do, and what I think he should have done.

He should most certainly have been terminated.

I never said otherwise

[Glassunion]

64. Just a point of clarification.

This robber in this instance did herd the manager into the back office of the store.

[aririgochou]

45. Someone else understands the rules

I thank you for seeing the way i see it. I am an Autozone employee and policy must be followed. That Autozoner also put a greater risk to himself and his manager by coming back in and stopping the robbery. That guy was lucky that robber did what he did. Most robberies that happen like this the robber will not kill if the robber gets what he/she wants. But when confronted by the "fight or flight" scenario, like this autozoner put the robber in, the robber then could have killed. Like I said, the Autozoner got lucky and "saved the day".

I am sorry the Autozoner lost his job. But he knew the policy and terms or his employment. And he violated those terms.

[DonP]

25. "...so it is a waste of te talking about it." Yet here you are again? N/T

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. I am sure a "no guns" policy would stop the criminals from robbing them at gun point

[upaloopa]

12. That's been the case for ever. It will continue to be the case.

[DonP]

19. Have an example of that sparky?

Where a "No Guns Allowed" sign stopped a crime.

You know actually made the thug (or thugs) say; "Oh shit they don't allow guns here Frank, let's go rob that other liquor store instead"?

Sounds almost as silly as your post, huh?

[Glassunion]

21. On a technicality that would be impossible to provide an example.

If a "No Guns Allowed" sign stopped a crime, there would be no record of it.

The opposite however can generate many examples where a "No Guns Allowed" sign did not prevent a crime.

[DonP]

22. I'm sorry, but a poster has determined that any factually based response is "bullshit games" ...

.... and he apparently doesn't want to play.

Those gun free zones worked so well at Virginia Tech and Aurora Colorado, didn't they?

That's why we need more gun free zones, right?

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Some business have a radically different outlook:

[IMG][/IMG]

They have not had any problems at that bank. No robberies, or gun accidents.

[Starboard Tack]

80. +1

[bowens43]

3. Not only should he have been fired...

he should have been arrested.

[Glassunion]

5. Why should he have been arrested?

He broke no laws at all.

[TPaine7]

9. It should be against the law, and it is against all reasonable concepts of morality,

for someone to defend themselves in any way against criminal aggression. Walmart has the right idea (from the OP's source):

This isn't the first time an employee has been fired for intervening in a robbery. In 2011, four Walmart employees were terminated after they disarmed and subdued a gun-toting assailant. Walmart policy directs employees to "disengage" and "withdraw" when a weapon is drawn.

Cowering in fear or running is the only appropriate response (unless you are a cop or federal agent or rich or well connected or make the proper political contributions to get a special permit).

Obviously.

[hack89]

6. We only arrest people for breaking the law.

that is a reasonable standard, don't you think?

[TPaine7]

10. I agree. See post 9. n/t

[JoeyT]

39. And this sort of thing is why

y'all will continue to lose. If you didn't come across as being opposed to a person's right to defend themselves, and pretended that you only objected to the gun, you might stand a chance. As it is, you're telling people that they should be at the mercy of whoever happens by. Good luck with that.

[ellisonz]

13. AutoZone should just make their company policy MORE GUNS FOR EVERYBODY!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. You've had some...

...good ideas so far today.

[ellisonz]

16. It's my breakfast of Republican souls...

...I'm burping them up - you know what sound that makes? MORE GUNS FOR EVERYBODY!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. ...Republican souls...

I would think only some serious cheese sauce would make palatable such a repast.

[TPaine7]

18. Hmmmm...

A person who collects the souls of the wicked and who most definitely isn't God...

[PavePusher]

24. Smells more like beer and whiskey to me.

That would explain a lot....

[sarisataka]

29. Eat lots of fiber

so you don't get bound up. Those are full of... well you know

[ManiacJoe]

30. If you are in need of a compromise...

> AutoZone should just make their company policy MORE GUNS FOR EVERYBODY!

... most folks would accept "more guns for the Good Guys."

[GreenStormCloud]

31. AutoZone is worried about their liability insurance rates.

If AZ allowed him to continue to be employed it would, by example, be allowing any employee that had a permit to carry a gun. Personally, I think that is a good idea, but the insurers would go nuts. They would be liable for any bad shots fired by a permitted employee. The insurance companies don't understand that such bad shot by a CCWer are very rare.

I have personally carried in violation of company policy. I had a job as a night cashier in a parking lot with hundreds of dollars in the cash register, in a high crime area, no way to drop any excess. I knew that if I ever used the gun I would be fired, but I would be alive to hunt for a new job. I considered that a good reason to carry. Now I have a very low risk job in the country and it would be a felony if I carried, so I don't.

[AlexSatan]

44. +1

[customerserviceguy]

35. May he be hired at a greater wage

by someone who gives a shit about justice.

[hunter]

48. When my brother was managing a retail place he would have fired this guy...

... and probably kicked his ass and taken his gun too.

My grandma or great grandma would have broken Mr. McClean's fingers and kneecaps for good measure, but they were crazy, friends of local law enforcement, and had zero tolerance for any sort of gunplay on their turf.

When I was a kid I saw my grizzly bear mom grab a stupid teenager's rifle, unload it, and break it against a rock. Poor kid looked like he'd just been castrated.

Myself, I try to avoid all situations like this. When the guns come out I strive to be invisible.

[CBGLuthier]

51. This is a dupe. At least the original mentioned he VIOLATED company procedure

I feel he was an idiot and should have been fired for being an idiot who can not follow safety rules.

[Glassunion]

62. I did not realize this was a dupe.

Where was the other post? I seached the gungeon and all of the main forums and did not see one before I posted.

[dballance]

52. Fired AS WELL HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN

If he had time to go to his car and get his gun he had time to dial 911, stay out of the store so he was no longer endangered and let the police take care of the situation. By going to get his own weapon and handle the situation himself there was a high likelihood all he would do is escalate the situation into a gun fight. That would be stupid and irresponsible with respect to the other workers in the store and any customers.

In this instance he prevailed. I seriously doubt all the reviews on him would have been so glowing if his actions started a gun fight and several people ended up dead or severely injured from the flying bullets.

[sylvi]

85. How often does that happen?

Since we're talking so much about statistics and probabilities and what should happen and what usually does happen and all that. How many DGUs in similar scenarios result in "several people ending up dead or severely injured from the flying bullets."

[dballance]

86. Thankfully Rarely.

Thankfully it's a rare instance when a gun fight breaks out between the criminals and the employees. If you don't think that is, in part, due to a no weapons policy like Autozone has then you're just ignoring the truth. The more weapons that are around the more likely it is someone will fire one and someone will get hit. You can't possibly say that the more weapons that are around in the hands of people will make a crime less likely to succeed or store workers safer.

All you can honestly say is that the more weapons that are around the more likely it is that one will get fired. Whether or not that weapon that gets fired is aimed at the bad guys or ensnares the good guys will just be a question answered at the hospital.

[sylvi]

89. That's not what I asked.

Perhaps you don't know what DGU stands for. It stands for "defensive gun use". I'm talking about when an actual scenario similar to this one occurs, where an employee or other customer brings their weapon into play to defend against an armed assailant.

In post #52 you stated, "I seriously doubt all the reviews on him would have been so glowing if his actions started a gun fight and several people ended up dead or severely injured from the flying bullets."

Earlier you seemed to imply that the relative scarcity of assaults with guns during robberies precluded any neccesity for a victim to bring their own weapon into the picture, that just giving up what the robber wanted, statistically, would yield a safer outcome.

If that's your claim, then I think it fair to question your concern about "people ending up dead or severely injured from the flying bullets." I think it's relevant when deciding the risk/reward of pulling a gun in self-defense as opposed to just complying and hoping for the best.

Do you have any figures that prove that more innocent people are hurt through DGUs than end up so through compliance with a gunman? To just say something along the lines of, "It isn't worth the risk" doesn't tell me much if I don't know exactly what that risk is.

[Glassunion]

93. You have a few "what ifs" that are not accurate.

"If he had time to go to his car and get his gun he had time to dial 911" - Did he have a cell phone on him? When I'm working on a salesfloor it is against policy for me to have a cell phone on me. Not aure what Autozone policy is. I checked the address and there are no payphones at the Autozone or in the strip center behind it, or at the Dairy Queen across the street. Calling the police may have not been an option.

"That would be stupid and irresponsible with respect to the other workers in the store and any customers." - There were no customers in the store, they were closing up. The only two people in the store was the manager and the robber.

Personally, I do not feel it is so black and white. Each and every single robbery is unique and has to be looked at on an individual level. There were no customers in the store, there was no payphone nearby, manager was led to the back alone at gunpoint, etc...

There is no data that compiles robberies of like stores specific to auto parts, but there are reports for retail establishment robberies pertaining to convienience retail. In those reports for homicide during the course of a robbery 15% were aquaintence based and 65% were random/senseless. Meaning that the employees/customers that were killed did nothing to provoke the attack. The remaining 20% either fought back or failed to follow the directions of the criminal.

http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/Resources/Research/Pages/default.aspx

[Glassunion]

65. More in-depth interview with the terminated employee.

Sorry it's from Faux though.

In his words he goes into more detail about what he was thinking and the sequence of events.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/autozone-fires-worker-who-stopped-robbery.html

I still feel he acted properly.

[Walk away]

76. I would guess that he signed a standard employee agreement NOT to carry a weapon at work and so...

he was fired for that and many other reasons such as law suits, bad publicity and the fact that he had no business pulling a gun on anyone.
This will not go down well in this forum but in the world of business this person is just a first class idiot who did not think before he acted and a danger and an embarrassment to a national organization.

[jehop61]

77. Why

do I have to keep seeing this thread day after day? Most really don't want to keep reading old news.

[Tigress DEM]

78. Too bad he didn't have a Union to represent him and change the system if he felt it unsafe.

If you feel your safety at work is so fragile that you gotta pack heat against the store rules, then the store needs more security or some change that remedies that.

If they allowed Unions at AutoZone, and maybe now employees will demand it, then they could have had a better negotiation and hopefully better solution.

[Glassunion]

94. More news... Community is offering him jobs, money and a trip. Sheriff offering an award.

http://wtkr.com/2012/12/05/autozone-employee-fired-after-scaring-off-fake-beard-bandit-humbled-by-community-support/

http://wtkr.com/2012/12/06/sheriff-says-he-plans-to-honor-autozone-hero-for-taking-action-against-fake-beard-bandit/