Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
It's really hard to say. If nothing ever happens (because armed employees are an effective visual deterrent perhaps?) then it's not a strain at all. If something bad does happen ... in fact if any number of bad things happen, it might be a problem.I have no idea on liability issues for the business. But as I mentioned pretty much all of the LGR's have just about everyone employed there armed. Can't imagine it would be that much of a strain for a LGS.
Do the employees fully understand that? Is there a stated policy and some basic education for each employee in what the owner requires they do and don't do? Is that policy legally sound? Do they understand that they are armed ONLY for the defense of life, not the preservation/recovery of property? That a shoplifter or a smash and grab thief is not a legitimate target to draw on and shoot? That even if a robber has a weapon the best response might not be to try to outdraw him and engage in a gun fight?What are they expected to do during a robbery? Is that even a question? Obviously protect the employee's and patrons of the store.
Man...I just don't know. I'd love to feel that way, but security guards are specifically trained for a very good reason, and a big part of that is to reign in "instinctive" tendencies which would endanger people and do more harm than good in a potentially violent situation.Are they trained? To what level? Personally I would feel like anyone who can legally posses a firearm and has some experience, or furthermore has a CCW would be worthwhile to have them armed while working under these circumstances.
And let's put a very fine point on this. ----- >MONEY<---------
1) They are armed to protect the employees and patrons of the store? Ok, great. Am I PAID to be a protector and guardian of the boss, my fellow clerks, and the public? Is my salary sufficient to cover these additional duties and the risks that come with them?
2) Are the company's insurance policies written to cover employees being armed (or told/encouraged to be armed) and acting as security guards? Will the insurers be paying the damages if a robber holds the place up and an employee (who was told to protect the store) draws on him and they start exchanging gunfire and a patron or passer-by is shot or killed accidentally in the exchange?
3) And this is the big one: If I, the counter clerk and security guard, act within the stated policies of my employer, will my employer back my actions and cover my expenses in any and all criminal and civil court cases I may be tied up in if shots are fired? If I'm charged with manslaughter/murder/AWD (criminal trial), or some robber's family wants to sue me for wrongful death (civil trial), are you, Mr. Employer, going to be paying for my legal defense? Or are you going to say, "Hey thanks for protecting the goods, but really sorry to hear about that $100,000 legal bill. Best of luck!"
This is one of those things that SEEMS very logical and common-sensical -- but isn't at all. It's pretty rocky ground.
While I'd like to hear otherwise, I have a gut feeling that most local gun shops encourage/allow their employees to openly carry mostly because they haven't really sat down and thought about these things very hard. It just seems the "right" thing to do ... and is, until it isn't.
We've all expressed out outrage at places like WalMart or Target which have made national news for firing an employee who laid hands on a thief or robber to stop them. And there's a sense of moral outrage that the good Samaritan employee was just standing up for the side of right and shouldn't be fired for protecting his employer's interests.
But the stores understand something that "we" generally do not: It is far cheaper to suffer the loss of merchandise than it is to deal with the legal matters surrounding ANY kind of violence, even completely "righteous" violence. Stores deal with loss of merchandise all the time, due to accidental breakage, shipment problems, employee theft, shoplifting, etc. That's just part of their business model. They do NOT want to have to include in their model massive legal fees to handle the fallout from a scuffle (or many) over one stolen item (or many).
It's sort of "Freakonomics" thinking but instead of looking at heroic employees taking risks to preserve the company's assets, retailers might well look at someone walking out the door with a stolen TV and say, "Oh, thank heavens! He only took a $1,000 TV, which we only had $800 in anyway. Thankfully we're not paying our lawyers ten times that amount to settle up a case because an employee hurt him getting back that comparatively worthless item!"
Last edited: