Autozone worker fired for violating gun policy


December 7, 2012, 12:35 PM
A young Autozone employees loses his job for stopping a robbery. IMO, this guy did the right thing and got fired for his actions :fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "Autozone worker fired for violating gun policy" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
December 7, 2012, 12:49 PM
There's already (multiple?) threads on this.

December 7, 2012, 12:49 PM
This was discussed a week or so ago on a few other gunboards, I stopped by a local Advanced Auto Parts and asked their policy, CCW is a NO-GO on company property/time.

I explained the reason for my question and they were like "daaaaamn"...


December 7, 2012, 12:55 PM
You have to understand the psychopathic nature of a corporation to understand the firing.

Corporations exist solely to maximize profit. There is no other reason for their existence. If you as an employee are killed by a robber than there is zero cost liability by the Corporation: the medical costs of emergency services accrues to the family, the burial costs are on the family, and prosecution of the guilty is funded by the community.

I have read of Corporate “dead peasant policies” wherein they have life insurance policies on employees, but the benefits go to the Corporation, not the family. You can understand what a perverse incentive this is, to make profit on employee deaths, but that is our system.

Now if an employee merely causes a paper cut on a robber, the Corporation is liable. If an employee gets in a shoot out and one of those bullets hits a car, a customer, another employee, we are talking big liability to the Corporation.

It is good business economics that dead employees are less of a liability than dead robbers.

It may be amoral, but hey, Corporations are psychopaths, they don’t have any morals.

December 7, 2012, 05:56 PM
I understand the actions of the employee as far as they're represented in the attachment but I completely get his dismissal.

Whoever said all good deeds should represent a pass on the rules? Sad, but there you go. Autozone and other corporations can't have folk going about utilizing firearms in a scenario which may be misconstrued as being upon Autozone's behalf if they do not have an active policy for armed employees in the first place.

Returning with the firearm is the height of "looking for trouble". I would sincerely hate to have been in the employees shoes had his armed return ended in discharging a firearm on anyone's part let alone any of the three or an innocent bystander being shot.

December 7, 2012, 06:09 PM
No. Here's the difference.

The employee followed the policy and left it in his car. They don't want their employees carrying guns around in their store. The employee agreed to it and abided by it. But when there was a real life and death crisis, He acted to protect the lives of his customers and fellow employees. This is a higher mandate than any corporate policy. This is where you depart from policy because to FAIL to do so endangers human life. For Autozone to say that EVEN WHEN THERE IS VIOLENT CRIME IN PROGRESS, their policy forbids firearms, it is to say that they would rather let the bad guy do what he wants, and accept people getting killed, than allow the person who is on the ground to make a decision that saves lives. That is depraved indifference. That is placing corporate welfare before human life. That is unacceptable.

All a 'no tolerance' policy is, is a way to excuse managers from making any decisions that require any kind of thought or value judgement.

December 7, 2012, 06:25 PM
^^^ +1

I think if the situation had went sideways, and the robber had killed the two employees, Autozone would probably issue a statement like "if only there was something that could've been done." I think like mljdeckard is right, that he abided by the rules until he was forced to go outside them when lives were on the line. I understand that Autozone has to have a policy on the books to remove them from liability, but when someone breaks the rules for the right reason, they shouldn't be punished for doing the right thing. Which boils down to what Slamfire said, that they are more comfortable with the prospect of employee loss than corporate liability.

Al Thompson
December 7, 2012, 06:52 PM


If you enjoyed reading about "Autozone worker fired for violating gun policy" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!