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

[WC145]

I find it interesting that some people here are so willing to take the gun wielding felon who has multiple warrants out on him at his word. He'd just put his gun away and go on home, no harm no foul. Yeah, right. I'll bet he was stealing the computer so he could take online classes and start turning his life around, too.

 

[Grey_Mana]

Look, Walmart's top priority is to protect themselves against liability, which trumps anything involving worker or customer safety.

That's libel, and incorrect. Setting policy is hard work, and it isn't possible to please everyone. Planning strategies and tactics involves guessing at what is most likely to happen, not what one wishes or fears will happen, and not all possible permutations.

They are looking after the company's best interests, first and foremost.

Walmart's interests correlate with their workers' and customers' interests, an enjoyable feature of capitalism.

That is the reason why their policy exists. If blame were to be assigned for this, then you needn't look much further than your nearest lawyer.

America's legal system isn't perfect, but it beats the alternatives.

 

[Maverick223]

I find it interesting that some people here are so willing to take the gun wielding felon who has multiple warrants out on him at his word. He'd just put his gun away and go on home, no harm no foul.

There is little reason to doubt it; he screwed up bad, realized it, and decided that he just wants to get out. Killing or injuring someone in the process affords him no advantage, and only digs him a deeper hole. If he simply wanted to go on a murderous rampage in all likelihood he would have done so when he was first approached and in "fight or flight mode".

 

[Cosmoline]

To assume that a criminal with a firearm pointed at someone's back "just wants to escape" and doesn't plan on killing anyone is DEEPLY IDIOTIC. I cannot stress that enough. That is imminent and unlawful deadly force--PERIOD. I fault the employees for not bashing the man's brains in as soon as they could, or snapping his neck. It is not the time for a wrestling match, but the time to use absolutely 100% of every available lethal tool. If not a firearm then a knife. If not a knife then a club. If not a club then your teeth and feet. A criminal with a gun to the back of a victim is the most dangerous thing on this planet. More dangerous than any great white shark or brown bear. More dangerous than a tiger. Why people assume that such a beast will be reasonable is absolutely beyond me. Such criminals kill tens of thousands every year. A while back a nice criminal robbed a motel a few blocks from here, then had the courtesy to shoot the clerk and a bystander witness. He still hasn't been caught.

Otherwise the only safe assumption you can make is that the criminal will kill his hostage and everyone who saw him. As they frequently do. COOPERATION = DEATH. You either run or fight with everything you have. When faced with imminent unlawful deadly force there is no third way.

America's legal system isn't perfect, but it beats the alternatives.

Well at least it keeps people from suing for "libel" because someone dares to accuse Wal-Mart of being predatory. Obviously they can fire at-will employees at will. And they probably have corporate policy of cooperating with any criminals. Which is all the more reason not to shop at that hole.

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.

No, there is EVERY REASON to expect that someone who presents IMMINENT AND UNLAWFUL DEADLY FORCE will in fact kill you and everyone else. It happens all the time. This is a criminal, who has already broken enough laws to put him away for life. He has nothing to lose except eye witnesses to his crime. You FIGHT or you RUN. There is no safe middle on this. If you trust to the tender mercies of the criminal, you have nobody to blame if he blows you down.

 

[9mm+]

That's libel, and incorrect. Setting policy is hard work, and it isn't possible to please everyone. Planning strategies and tactics involves guessing at what is most likely to happen, not what one wishes or fears will happen, and not all possible permutations.

I find this very humorous. As someone who started and ran his own business, as well as served as a VP/GM of a division of a Fortune 500 company, I can attest that our policy decisions were made in the context of what legal exposure may exist for the company. I didn't like it, but it was a fact of running a company. And since my opinion on Walmart is merely my own, it can't be considered libelous.

 

[NoAlibi]

There were several possible outcomes in this situation, none of which was guaranteed. They were successful so they should not be punished, however, each of them should be made painfully aware of the possible consequences of their acts.

Therefore the following letter went out to WalMart today:

My family and I were shopping in your store at the time of this incident. We would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to those employees for apprehending that gun-toting felon and preventing him from putting me and my family at grave risk.

 

[Panzercat]

Moments after he pulled out the small laptop, the workers say Longton also pulled out a handgun and charged toward the closed office door. Ray, Richins and Stewart were in the way. He grabbed Stewart as his way to get out.

He looked right at me and said, 'The gun is cocked. C'mon guys, just let me go. I don't want to do this,'" Shawn Ray recalled..."

Based on this series of events, I have to disagree with 1911 and some others.

1) Perp pulls gun.
2) Perp takes hostage.
3) Perp demands to be let loose.

Of note, the perp didn't make his demand until after he had taken a hostage. I mean, we can backseat drive this all day long, but suggesting anything else is calling the four witnesses liars with little more than your opinion as an argument. Likewise, 'being in the way' implies nothing more than that, and there's a wide specturm of meanings to choose from. Most notably, they simply may not have had time to get out of the way,

The moment he took that hostage, all bets are off.

Congratulations, walmart. You are punishing these four for exactly what the passengers of Flight 93 did... In case anybody missed that, that's keeping an armed thief from running around the store with your childern and spouses while taking his word he's just going to leave or assuming he's psychologically stable enough not to snap.

Yes, it was dicey. It could have easily gone wrong. But I'll say it right now... It's a job at walmart, of all places. Tell them to sit and spin. Everybody else thanks you. I certainly wouldn't want to work for a corporation that, and I quote:

"I'm surprised they would be fired they're defending their lives," said David Lundberg, who was a police officer for 21 years, has additional security experience and now runs Utahdetective.com.

 

[Geckgo]

For those making the reference Felon=Worst BG you've ever seen in a movie, I remind you that sometimes the difference between a Felon and a law abiding citizen is one bad judgement call. We don't know what he got his felony for, nor the history of his life. We only know that he is a human being with a gun that saw it as a means to escape and evade. Past that, we know nothing.

I work with several "felons," it can't be avoided in the oilfield, and there are few of them that I would like to "chum-up" with, but they are still human beings. Some of the non-felons I work with are more dangerous than the felons. Being convicted of a crime worthy of the "felony" status does not directly imply that this person has it in their capacity to willfully shoot an "innocent" bystander. Show me someone who is "innocent" and I'll show you a liar. I've broken the law, I've rolled the occasional stopsign, every once in a while I will change lanes without signalling, I've run red lights trying to beat the yellow, I was even charged with DUI (no conviction). I have known people in my life that lie, cheat, and steal at every concievable opportunity. I've learned from my mistakes and now take the higher road, and persuade others, one by one, to do the same. But I do not consider myself "innocent" in such childish notions of good vs evil, nor do I consider myself a BG. Just a man, and one that 99.95% of the time can be taken at his word.

 

[Cosmoline]

We only know that he is a human being with a gun that saw it as a means to escape and evade. Past that, we know nothing.

No sir. We know that he drew a firearm in the process of committing a crime, and took a hostage. He placed everyone within gunshot in imminent, unlawful deadly peril. He was no longer a human being at that point, but an imminent threat of death that had to be stopped or evaded. Evasion would have been impossible to accomplish safely, unless you're naive enough to take the word of an armed criminal.

ust a man, and one that 99.95% of the time can be taken at his word.

Not at all sure where that figure comes from. Or where you get the idea that armed criminals pointing guns at you should be trusted not to actually hurt anyone.

 

[Geckgo]

cosmo, sometimes I say something nice to my wife that isn't neccessarily true, that's where it comes from

I understand and agree, that the second he pulled a gun he became an imminent threat, but there are other ways to try and diffuse the situation without jumping on the guy and risking an accidental firing.

 

[Sam1911]

I find it interesting that some people here are so willing to take the gun wielding felon who has multiple warrants out on him at his word. He'd just put his gun away and go on home, no harm no foul. Yeah, right. I'll bet he was stealing the computer so he could take online classes and start turning his life around, too.

I find it stranger yet that so many are saying that someone who was attempting a surreptitious theft -- hoping not to be discovered -- and who put up NO fight when relieved of his stolen goods, and who put up NO fight when taken back into the security room, would all of a sudden go on a shooting rampage if allowed to leave as he'd requested.

I'm not trying to give the perpetrator undue credibility, but to apply some standard of logic to what he might possibly do.

He is a thief. He was trying to escape. He sees a way of effecting that escape. If I let him escape, NOW he's going to shift persona entirely and become a mass-murderer? There's no value in this assertion.

 

[Panzercat]

No sir. We know that he drew a firearm in the process of committing a crime, and took a hostage. He placed everyone within gunshot in imminent, unlawful deadly peril.

Completely agree. He could have been a nice guy. He could have been psycologically stable. He could have been a great tiddlywinks player and make a mean tuna casarol. He may have had no intention of shooting anybody. He could have been Ned Flanders.

But.

But he had a gun and took a hostage.
They made a judgement call based on those facts. Good for them.

 

[2WheelsGood]

There is little reason to doubt it; he screwed up bad, realized it, and decided that he just wants to get out.

I would say that if he really got to the point where he realized he screwed up, he would have dropped the gun. As long as he was holding the gun, his words don't matter.

 

[Sam1911]

No sir. We know that he drew a firearm in the process of committing a crime, and took a hostage. He placed everyone within gunshot in imminent, unlawful deadly peril.

Yes. He did. Now, what's the clearest way out of that peril for the unarmed employees? I maintain that is is not in attacking him and pushing him to use that gun. You don't have to take his word. Watch his actions. Analyze his goals. Killing a bunch of people (or anyone not directly confounding his escape) is CONTRARY to his goals.

He was no longer a human being at that point, but an imminent threat of death that had to be stopped or evaded. Evasion would have been impossible to accomplish safely, unless you're naive enough to take the word of an armed criminal.

Evading is easy enough if the thief is actively trying to leave your presence. There IS a risk he might "snap" and decide to kill everyone. But he already has the upper hand, and already could do that if he wants to. You have to decide, as realistically as possible, whether that is more likely to happen at his whim, or because he's violently and suddenly attacked.

It is a LONG jump from shoplifting to mass murder.

 

[2WheelsGood]

It is a LONG jump from shoplifting to mass murder.

True, but 99.9% of shoplifters don't pull a loaded gun when they're caught. This guy wasn't a statistical shoplifter from the start.

 

[BENBRU]

I'm looking at all of this laughing. Like no other. I'd go after walmart.... make a bunch more money suing walmart than you would working there.

For everyone who says you don't have leg to stand on in a law suit: I remind you we are living in a country where you can sue if your coffee is too hot, and you break your leg invading someone else's home.... Surely, a wrongful termination suit or a suit claiming that walmart policy placed the lives of these employees in danger.... something along those lines will be settled out of court with at least 6 digits and a gag order.
I'd be ok with getting fired from walmart for that...

 

[David E]

It's stupid to die for "company policy."

"Why didn't he resist?"

"He would've violated company policy."

"Oh, well, at least he died an obedient employee...."

MUST you resist? Of course not, but if _I_ think it's a good idea, I won't be worrying one iota about "company policy."

 

[Panzercat]

And if we were all worried about statistical averages in how stable this guy was, there's really no reason to conceal and carry in first place.

He's desperate enough to pull a gun. What else is he desperate enough to do?

 

[WC145]

I find it stranger yet that so many are saying that someone who was attempting a surreptitious theft -- hoping not to be discovered -- and who put up NO fight when relieved of his stolen goods, and who put up NO fight when taken back into the security room, would all of a sudden go on a shooting rampage if allowed to leave as he'd requested.

I'm not trying to give the perpetrator undue credibility, but to apply some standard of logic to what he might possibly do.

He is a thief. He was trying to escape. He sees a way of effecting that escape. If I let him escape, NOW he's going to shift persona entirely and become a mass-murderer? There's no value in this assertion.

How about this, forget that he was shop lifting (this time) and let's look at this from the moment he pulled a gun and stuck it on the employee's back. Now he's a gunman with a hostage threatening to kill him. My assumption is that he is ready and willing to use his gun and that at least the hostage is going to die. How can you assume anything else? Should I stand by and let him do it? Should I let him walk away to take another hostage or to kill someone else instead? Hell no, you stop the threat and these guys did the best they could under the circumstances. If one of them had been armed and shot the POS it would have been justified. If a cop broke into the office and shot him it would have been justified.

Imagine what people here would be saying if they let him go and he took some little girl hostage on his way out or he shot the greeter that didn't know enough to get out of the way or gave some old lady a heart attack stealing her car for a ride or whatever.

This guy is hardly the one to use as an example when you make your stand on the inherent goodness of mankind.

 

[Maverick223]

I don't believe anyone stated or inferred that the accused was a good individual or was in any way "in the right", we only applied logic with respect to the circumstances as presented in the article (which may or may not have been a reliable account).

 

[ForumSurfer]

My assumption is that he is ready and willing to use his gun and that at least the hostage is going to die.

If we all thought that way, there would be little need for hostage negotiators.

You've got to take into consideration everything that led up to that event.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Rushing a guy with a gun is never a good idea.

I don't think this statement could be more wrong. Rushing a guy with a gun has been what had stopped numerus mass/active shooters and stopped lots of other acts of violence. Whether or not rushing a guy with a gun is a good idea is going to be determined based on options and risks. This circumstance doesn't appear too good, but it does not exemplify all situations.

I don't agree with the Wal-mart policy, but I am not an employee who agreed to abide by it either. I don't think the firing was unfair given that the policy was in place before the event occurred. With that said, I don't think the employees acted prudently given the circumstance. Wal-mart's policy is in place to prevent this sort of rash act.

The perp just wanted to leave and these guys and gal turned themselves into wannabe cops.

Stopping unjust acts does not make one a wannabe cop anymore than shooting in self defense during a home invasion makes a person a wannabe cop. No, it wasn't their job to stop the guy, but then again, it wasn't their job to be victimized in a robbery.

The business owner next door to one of our shops stopped an armed robbery in our store. It wasn't his job to do that. Aside from $ kept from being lost, he potentially saved 5 lives (store employees and one customer). Both robbers had very violent criminal histories.

It may not always be prudent to act in such a situation, but whether or not it is your job to stop the bad guy isn't a salient issue. Stopping the bad guy doesn't make you a wannabe cop. If we had to wait for cops to make sure justice occurred, justice may not ever occur.

 

[Cosmoline]

Killing a bunch of people (or anyone not directly confounding his escape) is CONTRARY to his goals.

Who knows what his goals were? He said a bunch of stuff, but there's nothing unusual in that. You know what keeps a criminal from promising to harm nobody then killing everyone? Nothing at all. And they frequently do just that. Leaving no witnesses is a good strategy.

It is a LONG jump from shoplifting to mass murder.

It's only a few pounds of pressure on a trigger. Criminals murder people every day of the week, every week of the year. Y

How about this, forget that he was shop lifting

That's the key to understanding the situation. The shoplifting is not the issue. I watched a shoplifter run away a few weeks back and did nothing. I'm not going to hurt someone over some store's goods. The firearm and the imminent unlawful peril it represents are the issue. Those who look to the shoplifting say "he's just a shoplifter." But the second he threw down he became much more than just a shoplifter. He went from putting some property in danger to being an imminent, unlawful threat to everyone around him. Once that line is crossed, the light is green and you have to either flee (if you can in safety) or fight with everything you have.

 

[Sam1911]

How about this, forget that he was shop lifting (this time) and let's look at this from the moment he pulled a gun and stuck it on the employee's back. Now he's a gunman with a hostage threatening to kill him. My assumption is that he is ready and willing to use his gun and that at least the hostage is going to die. How can you assume anything else?

I think the ONLY realistic thing to assume is that HE has no purpose whatsoever in killing that hostage! How in the world does it suit his purposes to murder the hostage? What on earth would you believe he'd do that for?

"Ah HA! I have a hostage! Nobody stop me from leaving! BANG! Now I DON'T have a hostage... why did I do that?"

Should I stand by and let him do it?

I do not think you should force his hand, grab the gun and risk an almost certain shot (intentional or inadvertent) when all logic would indicate that he wants that hostage to remain alive, and NOT too wounded to walk, almost as much as the hostage himself! That would make some kind of sense.

Should I let him walk away to take another hostage or to kill someone else instead?

Why is he going to take another hostage? WHY is he going to kill someone? He didn't come here to kill someone, he came to steal something. He hasn't drawn his gun to kill someone, he's drawn his gun to get away. He MAY kill someone, if pushed to. WHY PUSH HIM TO?

If one of them had been armed and shot the POS it would have been justified. If a cop broke into the office and shot him it would have been justified.

Justified? YES. The wisest choice of action? Probably not. Drawing to a drawn gun is not a very good idea if you have ANY options left (like, just perhaps, letting him WALK AWAY).

Imagine what people here would be saying if they let him go and he took some little girl hostage on his way out or he shot the greeter that didn't know enough to get out of the way or gave some old lady a heart attack stealing her car for a ride or whatever.

Possibilities. Possibilities which are all something less than likely. (None of them seem to be very necessary to his goal of escaping.)

This guy is hardly the one to use as an example when you make your stand on the inherent goodness of mankind.

Certainly not! However, he does provide a learning moment as we try to discern whether you can make LOGICAL assumptions about a potentially violent criminals goals based on his words and actions.

 

[Sam1911]

If we had to wait for cops to make sure justice occurred, justice may not ever occur.

Holy crap. We do not dispense justice. We are not AGENTS of justice. Get JUSTICE out of your head right now. We may act ONLY in direct defense of life. Even the cops don't dispense JUSTICE.

What a way to ruin an argument.