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

[ForumSurfer]

So few have values and principles.
To most folks these days living a coward is preferable to dying for anything.

Wow. Since when did opting for a reaction that may be more feasible for everyone's safety make one a coward? So I guess hostage negotiators are cowards, too? We should just run into every situation head on, guns blazing. If a few women and children go down in the crossfire, so be it. I'm just saying that the line of reasoning as posted can be viewed as a little blood thirsty.

I find it nauseating that these heroes, who stopped an armed felon who was stealing and taking hostages are being second guessed.

This is S&T. It's where we 2nd guess everything in order to debate and learn.

 

[Guillermo]

Since when did opting for a reaction that may be more feasible for everyone's safety make one a coward?

where do you draw the line?

Do you watch your daughter get raped because the bad guy has a gun and you are old and in a walker? After all, he said he would not kill her.

And as to Sam's question as to whether if it was my son that could have potentially gotten shot, I would not say that he got shot to protect a piece of merchandise, I would say that he got shot fighting evil.

Nobody loves their child more than I do mine. She is a very impressive young woman with an agile brain and of great morals. If I have done my job she will be more than a warm body but a woman of principles and character in life or beyond.

 

[Sam1911]

where do you draw the line?

I think we have been exploring that throughout the thread. You draw the line at preservation of HUMAN LIFE. Especially when your company has a policy that seems to value HUMAN LIFE over merchandise. (Remember, the policy was to confront "evil" thieves unless they draw weapons and threaten to harm employees.)

Do you watch your daughter get raped because the bad guy has a gun and you are old and in a walker? After all, he said he would not kill her.

Are you being serious? Do you see these two situations -- a man trying to flee the scene of a petty theft -vs.- a man forcibly raping a woman -- as indistinguishable? Have some sense of proportion and reality, please!

And as to Sam's question as to whether if it was my son that could have potentially gotten shot, I would not say that he got shot to protect a piece of merchandise, I would say that he got shot fighting evil.

Brave words. Cold comfort. I guess you have to say so or your previous statement falls flat, but I can't equate dying to save someone else from "evil" and dying over a petty theft, at all. The math just doesn't work for me.

Nobody loves their child more than I do mine. She is a very impressive young woman with an agile brain and of great morals. If I have done my job she will be more than a warm body but a woman of principles and character in life or beyond.

And you would tell her to risk her life in this instance? You'd say that's the right way to solve this problem?

 

[ForumSurfer]

where do you draw the line?

That can just as easily be asked of you. Do you react knowingly sacrifice your daughter or my daughter if you know you can stop an armed robbery at a convenience store just for the sake of fighting the good fight?

I'm just saying, inaction does not make one a coward. Sometimes the right choice is harder to make.

 

[Guillermo]

A man taking a gun into a store, threatening and taking hostage is not "petty theft". Petty theft is stealing a bag of Doritos from the convenience store.

“The only honorable response to violence is counter violence. To surrender to extortion is a greater sin than the extortion in that it breeds the very act it seeks to avoid”

We might as well drop it as it comes down to values.
You have suggested that you value human life more than anything.
I value honor more than human life.

 

[2WheelsGood]

So if it had been your son who was the hostage...

Sam, let's say the hostage was your son, and you were one of the loss-prevention guys. The bad guy has a gun in your son's back, and claims he just wants to get out without being followed. So he says he's going to take your son with him until he's sure he's home free. Are you still going to take his word? People who comply with the demands of thugs often get killed in spite of the proclamations of the thug to the contrary.

 

[Guillermo]

And just to clarify. If my daughter was taken hostage by an armed man I would respect her for fighting back as well as the others for taking down the armed, hostage taker.

If she were to be harmed or killed it would be because of the perpetrator.

 

[Sam1911]

Sam, let's say the hostage was your son, and you were one of the loss-prevention guys. The bad guy has a gun in your son's back, and claims he just wants to get out without being followed. So he says he's going to take your son with him until he's sure he's home free. Are you still going to take his word? People who comply with the demands of thugs often get killed in spite of the proclamations of the thug to the contrary.

It comes down to whether I think he's more likely to be killed in the tussle over the gun, or more likely to be killed in retribution or an act of senseless violence by the petty thief who's just managed to make his way to the exit and freedom -- without adding a murder wrap to his want sheet.

I think I've expressed my assumptions on those odds clearly.

 

[Sam1911]

And just to clarify. If my daughter was taken hostage by an armed man I would respect her for fighting back as well as the others for taking down the armed, hostage taker.

If she were to be harmed or killed it would be because of the perpetrator.

But would you think LESS of her if she reasoned through the situation, communicated with the man, and lived through the encounter by her wits rather than her fists?

In other words, is she less honorable if she takes a gamble on NOT fighting, and wins her bet?

 

[Guillermo]

In other words, is she less honorable if she takes a gamble on NOT fighting, and wins her bet?

I already answered that

“The only honorable response to violence is counter violence. To surrender to extortion is a greater sin than the extortion in that it breeds the very act it seeks to avoid”

 

[2WheelsGood]

I think I've expressed my assumptions on those odds clearly.

You have, but I'm still trying to find the point where YOU are willing to act. OK, throw out the Walmart example for a second. What's your strategy and tactic if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, gets surprised, puts a gun to your wife's head, says he's not going to hurt her, but that he's going to take her with him to guarantee his escape. Are you going to let him, or are you going to fight? I realize I'm playing Devil's advocate, but it really appears to me (just my opinion) that you've lost rational thought in this instance. I usually find myself agreeing with you, so it seems out of character for you to fight this hard against action. This thug wasn't a friend of yours by chance, was he?

 

[DAP90]

A man taking a gun into a store, threatening and taking hostage is not "petty theft". Petty theft is stealing a bag of Doritos from the convenience store.




We might as well drop it as it comes down to values.
You have suggested that you value human life more than anything.
I value honor more than human life.

Why should you be able to make that choice for others?

If you are the hostage than go for it, but you should remember that in this case if you are not the hostage it's not your life that's most likely to get taken.

I see on this site all the time how we are responsible for where our bullets may go in a self defense situation. The same is true for the actions taken by the other three. They took actions that could have resulted in death. An AD was a distinct possibility here.

If they truly thought he was about to fire than they may have saved a life. If they thought he wouldn't actually fire and that gave them the opportunity to attack than all they did was risk somebodies life.

 

[Sam1911]

I already answered that

Oh ... OUCH! I guess you did. Not sure there's anything else to say, but I hope she's never in a position to lose your honor through such an act.

 

[Guillermo]

Why should you be able to make that choice for others?

The gun-wielding hostage-taker is the one whose act put them in danger by the act of armed-robbery and abduction (which Sam describes as "petty theft").

 

[Guillermo]

I hope she's never in a position to lose your honor

You misunderstand.

 

[DAP90]

The gun-wielding hostage-taker is the one whose act put them in danger by the act of armed-robbery and abduction (which Sam describes as "petty theft").

He did. He is ultimately the one to blame here but your viewpoint is not what I'd consider the norm.

You are basically saying fight, every time, no matter what, even if it results in an innocent person death because that is the right thing to do. Even if the situation could be diffused peacefully.

That's pretty extreme.

 

[Sam1911]

You have, but I'm still trying to find the point where YOU are willing to act.

Perhaps this is where the disconnect lies. You are not grasping, or I am not communicating well enough, my call for a rational analysis of the situation there in the moment. What is this person's reason for being here? Not what did they tell me, what have I OBSERVED them to be after? What do I believe they are likely to do to achieve that goal? What would I do in their shoes?

The WalMart scenario has a petty criminal forced into a back room. He wants to leave. His goal from the point of relinquishing the merchandise is to GET AWAY. It is not rational to assume that he wants to harm anyone, or add anything else to his wants sheet. I make a rational choice (which may be wrong) that when he says, "don't make me do this" and moves to leave, that LEAVING is his goal. I can't see any direct benefit that killing anyone -- who isn't trying to stop him -- would have toward achieving that goal.

Again, I may make a rational analysis that isn't in line with the thief's eventual actions, but I have to balance that possibility against the very real possibility that if I attack, he will feel that his hand is being forced and will use his weapon -- or even that it will discharge accidentally in the scuffle.

Very bad consequences to a miss-step either way.

OK, throw out the Walmart example for a second. What's your strategy and tactic if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, gets surprised, puts a gun to your wife's head, says he's not going to hurt her, but that he's going to take her with him to guarantee his escape. Are you going to let him, or are you going to fight?

First off, I am not going to draw to a drawn gun. That is suicide as has been demonstrated by tens of thousands of studies and role-playing FOF exercises. I'm going to have to use my wits as I can to minimize the chances of my wife getting killed. I MAY find an opportunity to launch a counterattack. I MAY seek to be allowed to trade places with my wife. I MAY seek to communicate with the criminal and buy her life or at least more time.

I almost certainly would not rush him wantonly believing that I had a chance of beating him to the trigger.

I realize I'm playing Devil's advocate, but it really appears to me (just my opinion) that you've lost rational thought in this instance.

Thanks for the compliment, but if you stick to the points and follow logic, I think we can distill this to some basic differences of belief or assumption that don't require such accusations.

I usually find myself agreeing with you, so it seems out of character for you to fight this hard against action.

That should tell you something. Why is Sam saying, "Don't attack, don't push his hand, use your brain instead of your fists, and find the MOST likely path to survival, not the most DESPERATE?"

 

[Guillermo]

You are basically saying fight, every time, no matter what, even if it results in an innocent person death because that is the right thing to do.

pretty much. When someone goes to such an extreme act of intimidation, abduction and violence by going into a store, threatening murder by wielding a firearm, taking a hostage and threatening to kill them in order to escape there is but one response.

Such an act of violence must be reacted to with equal or greater violence.

 

[Sam1911]

pretty much. When someone goes to such an extreme act of intimidation, abduction and violence by going into a store, threatening murder by wielding a firearm, taking a hostage and threatening to kill them in order to escape there is but one response.

I'm not a very honorable person. I would really, really, REALLY, with all of my heart, REALLY rather live to see my family again. In all honestly. In fact, the question wouldn't give me a moment's pause. As I said before, I don't care if he steals the entire store, and gives us all wedgies. I'm going home if there is ANY way to accomplish that. If that means I have to carry him out of the store on my back, put him in MY car, buy him a milkshake, and drive him to Bermuda.

Heck, maybe if WalMart would present my family with the laptop computer I'd saved, then it would be worth it. Maybe they could frame it and put it up on the mantle.

 

[WC145]

The assumption that the gunman's word is to be trusted is simply ridiculous. I have people lie to me on a daily basis about their speed, their licenses, the number of clams they've taken, where the've been fishing, any number of things under circumstances far less dire with only a small civil fine at stake. This guy escalates the situation dramatically by drawing a gun and taking a hostage, I won't put anything past someone that desperate, regardless of what he says.

Certainly there was risk involved with the decision to try and take him down, but to allow him to leave, with his weapon, creates the potential for far bigger problems. I still say those guys did the right thing, in spite of company policy.

 

[Sam1911]

The assumption that the gunman's word is to be trusted is simply ridiculous.

Again, though, I'm not saying to take his word!

Perhaps this is where the disconnect lies. You are not grasping, or I am not communicating well enough, my call for a rational analysis of the situation there in the moment. What is this person's reason for being here? Not what did they tell me, what have I OBSERVED them to be after? What do I believe they are likely to do to achieve that goal? What would I do in their shoes?

The WalMart scenario has a petty criminal forced into a back room. He wants to leave. His goal from the point of relinquishing the merchandise is to GET AWAY. It is not rational to assume that he wants to harm anyone, or add anything else to his wants sheet. I make a rational choice (which may be wrong) that when he says, "don't make me do this" and moves to leave, that LEAVING is his goal. I can't see any direct benefit that killing anyone -- who isn't trying to stop him -- would have toward achieving that goal.

Again, I may make a rational analysis that isn't in line with the thief's eventual actions, but I have to balance that possibility against the very real possibility that if I attack, he will feel that his hand is being forced and will use his weapon -- or even that it will discharge accidentally in the scuffle.

Very bad consequences to a miss-step either way.

 

[Guillermo]

I would really, really, REALLY, with all of my heart, REALLY rather live to see my family again. In all honestly. In fact, the question wouldn't give me a moment's pause. As I said before, I don't care if he steals the entire store, and gives us all wedgies. I'm going home if there is ANY way to accomplish that. If that means I have to carry him out of the store on my back, put him in MY car, buy him a milkshake, and drive him to Bermuda.

wow

 

[DAP90]

pretty much. When someone goes to such an extreme act of intimidation, abduction and violence by going into a store, threatening murder by wielding a firearm, taking a hostage and threatening to kill them in order to escape there is but one response.

Such an act of violence must be reacted to with equal or greater violence.

Which leads me back to the question; why do you get to make that decision for everyone else? If it's just you in the scenario that's one thing but there are a lot of other people who value their lives more than your honor.

I'm not taking this guy at his word. He is a criminal after all. It's just not my job to prevent this guy from ever committing another crime. It's my job to defend myself and my loved ones.

 

[Kleanbore]

...but to allow him to leave, with his weapon, creates the potential for far bigger problems.

That fact is relevant to the decision that a sworn officer would face, but it irrelevant for civilians.

The question at hand was whether trying to disarm the man created more risk for the hostage than simply standing aside.

The employees prevailed tactically this time; that doesn't make their decision an good one. A few repetitions in FoF role playing would probably indicate that it was not.

 

[Sam1911]

wow

Yup!

Laptops are neat, but not worth a life.

Honor is something, I guess*, but it sure is hard for my family to eat, doesn't tuck them in at night, doesn't give my daughter away at her wedding, doesn't do anything for me that I would give up a sound night's sleep to achieve.

(But this is going off-topic.)

...


* (what exactly, I don't know, but a way of convincing people they should do something that their brain says isn't a good idea)