4 Wal Mart employees fired, what would YOU have done?

[Sam1911]

they were to disengage and withdraw. To where? The store itself with all its other people? Was the hostage also supposed to withdraw, sarcasm intended?

All they had to do -- and all he asked them to do -- was take hands off and stand aside as he walked out the door. No dragging a hostage through the aisles, no police standoff.

All he seems to have wanted was to walk away. EVEN if he wanted to walk the hostage up to the entrance, there would be little reason to expect that anyone would end up shot.

In wrestling the gun away from him, though, there is EVERY reason to expect someone to bleed.

Or would the manager firing them rather of had her entire store under siege by police and a multi hour standoff, a dead employ + other victims?

There is very little reason to suggest that this is the only -- or even the likely -- alternative to the actions taken. In fact, the dead employees are MORE likely to be the result of the employee counter attack than the result of the thief walking out the door.

 

[2WheelsGood]

Unfortunately, in those rare situations where a criminal does intend to "leave no witnesses," these company policies contribute to the deaths of innocent people who have no chance to defend themselves and those cases are the corporate lawyer's nightmare.

This is where the real problem is with Monday-morning-quarterbacking any of these stories. Sure, the bad guy says: "I just want to leave", but who really knows what would have happened if they had let him go without disarming him? Without a time machine, we have absolutely no way to know if they did the right thing. Maybe if they had chosen the other path, they'd all be dead now. We'll never know.

I agree with 1911, but again in hindsight it's easy to make these calls. Let's all hope we're never tested likes these guys/gals were. If for no other reason, who wants to be judged by a bunch of dudes sitting safely at their computer keyboards?

 

[Sam1911]

Without a time machine, we have absolutely no way to know if they did the right thing. Maybe if they had chosen the other path, they'd all be dead now. We'll never know.

Of course. But our reason for discussing this stuff in S&T is to attempt to distill what the likely realities of the situation were, without the 'fog of battle' clouding our judgment -- to discern what worked, what didn't work, what might have worked better, what was sheer luck and shouldn't be counted on, and how things might have changed the game -- so that we may learn a bit more about how WE should react to some similar situation in a way that might work best to preserve our own lives or those of loved ones.

In this case, we have a decently clear picture of the course of events, and a pretty good account of what was said.

From those facts, we can make some pretty strong assumptions about the intents of those involved and the possible outcomes that different choices might have produced.

Would reacting to the drawn gun by backing off and standing aside caused MORE people to die? Or would it have put fewer lives at immediate risk?

Would allowing him to leave have ended in mass murder and a police standoff? Or would it have ended with the perpetrator running out the door, leaving the property, being identified on security tapes and apprehended later by the police in a controlled and well-planned arrest?

Would one false move -- one unlucky twist of a finger -- in the counterattack have left one or more employees dead? Would that killing have prompted a more violent and desperate escape? Would that killing have pushed the perpetrator to greater and more violent acts of desperation knowing that he was now wanted on multiple manslaughter charges?

Just thowing up our hands and saying, "oh, we'll never know," doesn't indicate that we're benefiting from the analysis, here. If we can't learn from this, why even discuss it? We aren't here for entertainment or to cheer on the good guy and boo the bad guys. This is supposed to be a learning experience.

Up at West Point, they don't study Waterloo because they're all Wellington fans and hate Napoleon. And they're not just "really into" history. There are lessons to be learned that could be applicable in their lives in the future.

 

[2WheelsGood]

Just thowing up our hands and saying, "oh, we'll never know," doesn't indicate that we're benefiting from the analysis, here. If we can't learn from this, why even discuss it? We aren't here for entertainment or to cheer on the good guy and boo the bad guys. This is supposed to be a learning experience.

I completely agree, or I wouldn't even be here. But in the spirit of learning, my point about hindsight is that it's easy to look back and say "oh, the guy just wanted to leave." I would say in this case that's probably true. But there's a huge risk in taking a gunman's word for it that he intends to do no harm. When the police corner a suspect with a gun, they aren't going to take his word for it that he isn't going to use it. They will do everything they can to make sure the threat is neutralized before they stop their offense, even if that means tackling the guy. And if you believe the story, the police even told these guys that they did the right thing. But here we are saying they didn't.

 

[9mm+]

Sam, I see your points and understand your position, but I do disagree. The thief was no common shoplifter; he was an armed thief. Employee areas at big box stores like Walmart can be quite crowded with people on break, eating lunch, training, etc. Should the loss prevention team have let the gunman go, what might have happened when he ran into the next employee standing in the hallway? Or the employee after that? Or whomever may have been standing at the exit (assuming that the gunman could even find the exit)? If the gunman was desperate to escape and willing to not only brandish a firearm to the loss prevention team but place the gun muzzle at someone's back, we can assume that he may have shot someone to get out, even if that person was only being perceived as an encumbrance to the escape.

 

[wow6599]

This is part of life in 2011....and it sucks. 50 years ago these employees would be the toast of the town and given medals, but in the age of the ultra PC machine that is America, they lose their jobs.

 

[Sam1911]

If the gunman was desperate to escape and willing to not only brandish a firearm to the loss prevention team but place the gun muzzle at someone's back, we can assume that he may have shot someone to get out, even if that person was only being perceived as an encumbrance to the escape.

Is there some way to believe that this is a greater possibility of injury or death than is inherent in wrestling away a gun that is already pressed against another man's body?

You're sort of saying, "Let's risk EVERYTHING right here, because an equal or lesser danger could be, maybe, risked later if we don't."

Seeing as he didn't shoot anyone, but warned them that he simply wanted to leave, I have a hard time seeing why he would automatically shoot someone else he sees while running through the employee area. Is it reasonable to say that -- in light of the fact that he wasn't shooting anyone when in physical contact with them -- he would go on to automatically shoot someone else he might, possibly encounter later?

I don't think we're being very clear headed with risk assessment here.

 

[9mm+]

+1 Wow! And how many trial lawyers per capita were there 50 years ago versus how many there are today? Yep, there's your sign...

I remember reading news clips from the 50's when such employees and average citizens were heralded by the press, with some even foiling mob crimes on their own, without ever a thought of legal entanglement or being sued. Of course in the case of the mob, the 'hero' did run the very real chance of being rubbed out by the gangsters themselves, but they didn't need to worry about guys in $5000 suits and wingtips hauling them to court and stabbing them in the back with their MontBlanc pens.

 

[9mm+]

You're sort of saying, "Let's risk EVERYTHING right here, because an equal or lesser danger could be, maybe, risked later if we don't."

That is exactly what I am saying with the exception that the danger risked could be higher, not lesser. And those effected in that case would have been truly innocent and not part of the loss-prevention team's decision to act or not act.

It's okay...We can agree to disagree on this. I do see your points and as always respect your opinion; it's just that I don't agree with your position in this circumstance.

 

[Geckgo]

Hard to say what I would do in this situation, but instead of tackling the guy or letting him walkout, I would still be concerned about an armed man wondering through my back room.

I'd probably tell the man, "alright, you can go, let me show you where the back door is" and walk him to it. I don't think I'd be able to talk him into leaving the gun at the door as he exited into the parking lot, but who knows? I'd mention it politely. Then, if one of the other people in the room had not already done so, I would call the police and tell them that the perp has exited the back of the building and is in the parking lot, check the suvailance cameras to see where his car is (If there was one) etc.

One thing I learned working at a gas station while in college was that it can be very easy to talk people down, even irate people, at least to the point where nobody gets shot, specially if they show some kind of resemblence of a conscious.

Can I talk the gun away from him? No. Can I get him out the back door without my buddy getting shot, in this case, based on what has been presented, probably. The fact that he didn't try to lie to the police (I got the impression that his statements mirrored those from the employees) says a great deal about his character, not that you would know that ahead of time.

Just my two coppers.

 

[788Ham]

I retired about 6 years ago, needing something to do to keep sanity, I took a job at Wally World part time. One of the first things in orientation was to hammer home "no stopping thieves" for shoplifting, call a manager! Working in hardware/paint dept., it was always easy to see perps hiding things under clothing, calling management to the scene wasn't a problem either, however.... The store management always made a "BIG" DEAL" about making sure you identified the correct person, "We don't want to stop the wrong person and have them come back and sue us!" After twice being called into the inner office and told to "Just do your job, don't worry anymore about calling management about shoplifters", I told the store manager "That's fine with me, I don't care if they stick the whole store under their coats". Well, before the hour was up, I was let go with the statement, "Don't think you'll be a viable employee!" This was after I'd been promoted twice in their screwy system. Needless to say, I'll never go back to Wally World again! I don't feel sorry for the employee's, I feel sorry for Wally World being such a farce in the community!

 

[gym]

When you own a business with any employees. You set a president when you allow discretionary actions is these kinds of situations. They had to fire them or risk all kinds of problems down the road. From loss of their insurance coverage, to lawsuits. They employee too many people to allow them to make their own decisions and possiblly be involved in a shooting. Even if they got the gun away from this guy, next time it could go off, and if they sanction it, they would leave themselves open for a crapload of legal problems.

 

[DAP90]

9mm+
Quote:
That is exactly what I am saying with the exception that the danger risked could be higher, not lesser.

Would you still be saying that if you were the hostage and you just had to hope the other three could pull it off without you getting shot?

 

[ajbeau]

The employee should have pulled out his gun and shot the guy!!! i am sure that would be against policy too( though very satisfyingy!)

 

[9mm+]

David, if I understand your question correctly, then yes, I would still be saying that. If someone had a muzzle pressed against my back, then my first thought would be for someone or something to remove it.

 

[9mm+]

From loss of their insurance coverage, to lawsuits. They employee too many people to allow them to make their own decisions and possiblly be involved in a shooting

The legal ramifications, especially lawsuits, is exactly the reason why companies do this. They want drones, not independent thinkers. If there is a problem, then call the manager. If you can't find the manager, then just sit there and rock back and forth until 'help' arrives.

 

[skoro]

Well, I'm not a corporate entity. Walmart is. And like probably almost all corporations, they have almost no regard for employees. Their only concern is profits for shareholders and bonuses for executives.

Thus, these corporate policies that seem so counterintuitive. Most of us think and act in human terms, not in corporate terms. The corporation sees this action as one that could have led to legal action. That might have cost an infinitesimal fraction of a tenth of a percent to their bottom line. So, the employees get shoved out the door.

Case closed.

 

[DAP90]

David, if I understand your question correctly, then yes, I would still be saying that. If someone had a muzzle pressed against my back, then my first thought would be for someone or something to remove it.

I can't argue with wanting the gun removed from my back. I would too, but with minimum risk. Granted, I don't know the whole story but from what I read it just seems like they acted with reckless disregard for the hostages life.

Perhaps if they had caught him in a momentary lapse of concentration and the muzzle had wavered away from the hostage I could agree with their actions more, but that doesn't appear to be what happened.

It ended well, and I'd rather he was caught than had escaped, but I think they were more lucky than anything.

 

[788Ham]

ajbeau,

Store "Loss Prevention Specialists" aren't armed, he couldn't have pulled his rod and shot the guy. These folks usually call the cops and let them do the dirty work, you mean let them get their hands dirty doing something? LOL

 

[Sam1911]

They want drones, not independent thinkers. If there is a problem, then call the manager. If you can't find the manager, then just sit there and rock back and forth until 'help' arrives.

Most of us think and act in human terms, not in corporate terms.

But I'm responding to this in ENTIRELY human terms. I don't care if someone steals an ENTIRE Walmart STORE. That's not my business. (Though I'd be impressed...)

I'm saying for the sake of preservation of human life, specifically that of the employees directly involved, counterattacking this person under the given circumstances was NOT wise.

Lucky, yes. Wise, no. Likely to work the next time? Definitely not.

If I was a candy shop owner with three employees and we were held up under the same circumstances, my thoughts would be exactly the same.

Let him go. Don't force him to use the gun. Use your brain and social skills to deescalate the situation. I can replace what he's stolen -- even if the police never catch him. There is neither valor nor security in dying over a petty theft.

 

[Sam1911]

And those effected in that case would have been truly innocent and not part of the loss-prevention team's decision to act or not act.

You've weighted the lives of the loss-prevention team members as less valuable than the "truly innocent" employees the shooter might possibly see (and have some yet undetermined reason to decide to shoot) outside that room? Golly.

 

[skoro]

Sam -

What you say is correct. It could have gone terribly wrong and there could have been injuries or even death as a result.

But no one died. There were no injuries. The outcome was positive all the way around. Yet the employees were let go regardless.

In the same circumstances, would you fire your three candy shop employees? Or would you maybe consider that they were acting on your behalf? Humans tend to have human reactions. One of those is to protect those we're close to.

Corporations have no such concerns.

 

[Maverick223]

I have to agree with elcaminoariba and Sam, however I believe that only the members that initially acted on the gunman should be fired (the one(s) that pushed him away from the employee taken hostage). The others, particularly the one taken hostage, were simply acting in their (and their fellow employees') best interests after said action.

 

[Sam1911]

Yet the employees were let go regardless.

Because they violated the policy and in so doing set a standard by which others will surely be killed. As others have pointed out, a large firm can't say, "It's o.k. this time because it worked out." Any time there is a rules violation, the results need to be the same. Not because of what will happen to these employees, but because of what precedent they set for others. In this, I entirely agree with Walmart.

In the same circumstances, would you fire your three candy shop employees?

It would have to depend on what I'd told them to do in that instance. If I said, "If someone shows a weapon in here, LET THEM HAVE WHATEVER THEY WANT AND LEAVE," and then my guys go to blows with the next thief who gets tough -- YES. They'd be fired. That is not what I instructed them to do, and they've opened me up to risks I took steps to avoid.

Or would you maybe consider that they were acting on your behalf?

Making a grievous, potentially deadly MISTAKE on my behalf, and against my wishes, does not engender love and happiness from me.

I might be sympathetic and forgive, if I live through the event. For a corporation establishing rules of operations to do so would be improper.

 

[9mm+]

You've weighted the lives of the loss-prevention team members as less valuable than the "truly innocent" employees the shooter might possibly see (and have some yet undetermined reason to decide to shoot) outside that room? Golly.

Well, yes, vicariously speaking. In other words, if I were on the loss prevention team, I would be willing to risk my life (and by default the other team members, too) over that of some innocent schmoe walking to the vending machine for a bag of chips. If I let the perpetrator go and he shot someone during the escape, I would find it extremely hard to forgive myself.

Hmmmm, am I not just getting through here? I'm not trying to persuade others to abandon their perspectives, but simply to state my own. I don't believe that any of these premises are beyond rational.