clerk fired job for fightin who threatened to kill him

#1
T

transammann

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
615
Likes
0
#1
Fired for being brave: Store clerk loses his job after tackling armed robber who threatened to shoot him

Read more: Store clerk fired for disarming gunman who was urged by others to shoot | Mail Online


So self defense is now a fire-able defense ???..LOL

So what was the guy supposed to do, just let the crook shoot him. I suppose Circle K would have been fine with one of their clerks being killed as long as he is following company policy. This is just the continuation of the lefts mantra that you are just supposed to roll over and take it. If you are nice to the crooks you will be ok. But we all know that any more you are just as likely to get shot as not, no matter what you do. This man did what he had to save his life. He should be held up as the example of what is right not fired.
 
#2
#2
The cashier that was at the McDonalds when those two beasts jumped the counter also got fired.

It is a common theme. If you are attacked on the job, they only way to keep your job is to take one for the company.
 
#3
#3
Show these businesses how you feel by taking your money elsewhere. When done on a large scale, it works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
The Ron Mexico said:
Show these businesses how you feel by taking your money elsewhere. When done on a large scale, it works.
Click to expand...


LOL..they all do it!

Fight back get fired!

this didnt and would happen in the 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s

In steps the Passive leftest idiots in the 90s and up and you get fired for fighting back and saving your life
 
#5
#5
Probably wouldn't have been fired if he was union. Is that what the OP is advocating?
 
#6
#6
1. The company should be able to fire whomever they want to fire for whatever reason they deem necessary.

2. The company, like most large companies, had a policy that stated that employees should not intervene in robbery attempts; the company, most likely, had insurance to back up the theft. That insurance deductible is most likely lower than would have been the deductible had the man been seriously wounded.

3. The burglars were trying to steal money from the company not from the employee.

4. The burglars, according to the article, did not verbalise their threat until the employee refused to give them money.

I worked retail in high school (Old Navy) and was subjected to a video on the first day of work in which I was admonished not to try to intervene in any robbery but simply inform my supervisor and/or call the police.

Whether or not one agrees, philosophically, with this stance is certainly debatable; however, these companies have these policies in place in order to avoid the potentially larger and more devastating costs of lawsuits that could/would occur in the event that something went horribly wrong in the intervention.
 
#9
#9
therealUT said:
1. The company should be able to fire whomever they want to fire for whatever reason they deem necessary.

2. The company, like most large companies, had a policy that stated that employees should not intervene in robbery attempts; the company, most likely, had insurance to back up the theft. That insurance deductible is most likely lower than would have been the deductible had the man been seriously wounded.

3. The burglars were trying to steal money from the company not from the employee.

4. The burglars, according to the article, did not verbalise their threat until the employee refused to give them money.

I worked retail in high school (Old Navy) and was subjected to a video on the first day of work in which I was admonished not to try to intervene in any robbery but simply inform my supervisor and/or call the police.

Whether or not one agrees, philosophically, with this stance is certainly debatable; however, these companies have these policies in place in order to avoid the potentially larger and more devastating costs of lawsuits that could/would occur in the event that something went horribly wrong in the intervention.
Click to expand...

Get out of here with your objective facts and rational. They are not welcome in transammann threads.
 
#10
#10
The Ron Mexico said:
Show these businesses how you feel by taking your money elsewhere. When done on a large scale, it works.
Click to expand...

Evidence 1: GoDaddy's support of SOPA. So many people moved to difference registrars that they have come out strong against SOPA now, but the damage has been done.
 
#11
#11
transammann said:
If he was union he would have been asleep and the robber would have had free reign in the store!
Click to expand...

Would still have a job though. Do you want to see businesses limited on how they can operate, hire/fire, etc?
 
#12
#12
therealUT said:
1.

2. The company, like most large companies, had a policy that stated that employees should not intervene in robbery attempts;
Click to expand...


robbery???

one of the thugs was screaming "shoot him shoot him go ahead shoot him"

its not robbery at that point!
 
#14
#14
utvolpj said:
Would still have a job though. Do you want to see businesses limited on how they can operate, hire/fire, etc?
Click to expand...


Right of self-defense

The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force.

Right of self-defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#15
#15
transammann said:
robbery???

one of the thugs was screaming "shoot him shoot him go ahead shoot him"

its not robbery at that point!
Click to expand...

You are correct, at the point in which he refused to comply with company policy and hand over the cash they then threatened his life. So, he violated company policy.
 
#17
#17
The problem is the "company policy" angle. I believe most companies have a "just give them what they want and try to get them to leave" admonishment to employees in dealing with robbers. However, in THIS case if genuine self-defense were to come into play the firing might be actionable. I could imagine a pretty sympathetic jury to a guy who's been told to get shot if he wants to stay employed.
 
#18
#18
therealUT said:
You are correct, at the point in which he refused to comply with company policy and hand over the cash they then threatened his life. So, he violated company policy.
Click to expand...

company policy?

so u would be ok with a company policy to fire all known gays...glad to see that!!!
 
#19
#19
therealUT said:
You are correct, at the point in which he refused to comply with company policy and hand over the cash they then threatened his life. So, he violated company policy.
Click to expand...


company policy is give them the cash etc...not give them your life..when company policy interferes with your RIGHT to defend yourself(life) then its wrong!!!
 
#20
#20
transammann said:
company policy?

so u would be ok with a company policy to fire all known gays...glad to see that!!!
Click to expand...

I would not be okay with it; however, I think a company should certainly have such a right. They should just as well have the right to hire/fire only WASPs, African-Americans, Arabs, Hindus, women, etc.
 
#21
#21
transammann said:
company policy is give them the cash etc...not give them your life..when company policy interferes with your RIGHT to defend yourself(life) then its wrong!!!
Click to expand...

You obviously have a reading problem; or, you do not understand that sequence of events matters in this case.
 
#22
#22
therealUT said:
You are correct, at the point in which he refused to comply with company policy and hand over the cash they then threatened his life. So, he violated company policy.
Click to expand...

company policy???..LOL

Guess u are OK with company policy that would allow smokers anywhere in the building?

Guess u are OK with company policy that would fire all known gays

Guess u are OK with company policy that would fire all known girls that got or had an abortion?
 
#23
#23
therealUT said:
I would not be okay with it; however, I think a company should certainly have such a right. They should just as well have the right to hire/fire only WASPs, African-Americans, Arabs, Hindus, women, etc.
Click to expand...

Just as long as they dont hire only whites!! Then u scream racist!!!!!
 
#24
#24
It's a private company. They should be able to fire anyone they want, with very few exceptions.

Now someone will use an extreme example to rebut my statement. Something along the lines of a mentally challenged veteran with 14 kids, 8 dogs, 2 cats, 3 cars and a mortgage.
 
#25
#25
transammann said:
company policy???..LOL

Guess u are OK with company policy that would allow smokers anywhere in the building?
Click to expand...

I answer this with a resounding "Yes!" I have already addressed your other questions.

I am not okay with companies that hire/fire based on race/gender/sexual orientation; however, I will defend their right to do so.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top