guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
And, given the benefit of calm, analytical 20/20 hindsight...you are probably correct.
The clerk didnt have the opprotunity for calm, analytical, 20/20 hindsight. He wasnt sitting behind a nice safe desk. It wasnt some abstract intellectual debate for him; he was the one with a gun pointed at him, not your or I.
Thre are two issues here; the first being the wisdom of his decision and the second being whether or not he deserves to LOSE HIS JOB for that decision. Reasonable people can disagree on the first issue but the second one is a no-brainer. The clerk is not the criminal, he didnt ask to be put in that situation, and it isnt fair to fire him.
TOS---if an identical situation occured involving a UPS driver who you represent as a shop steward...would you still advocate terminating his employement? Would you still be so quick to side with management? Or would you be able to put your own personal predjudices aside and be an advocate for the driver instead of throwing him under the bus?
There are two points here.
First, the company has a policy and that policy is "not to provoke, chase or engage a robber. "
This idiot "then chased the pair out of the store where
they fled in a waiting car."
This is really simple. He broke a company policy set in place to protect him. No where in logic does it make sense to "CHASE" anyone who holds a gun. If he had been shot while chasing the suspects, it would have been his own fault, and the shooter could have made a case that "they" were the ones who were then being threatened.
It has happened many times before. Once they were fleeing, they no longer POSED a threat to the clerk.
Second, I agree that while the gun was being pointed at him and a threat made, he had every right to defend himself, but once the threat ended, he should have maintained himself, called the police and NOT placed himself in further jeopardy. How did he know that there wasnt someone else outside holding a gun, like a boyfriend? How did he know that when he ran outside, someone else other than the two WOMEN he was chasing would take a more aggressive action against him?
There are too many variables when running outside the security and safety of the store. Once the women ran out, he should have locked the door and protected himself with the security of a locked down business.
He showed horrible judgement after the threat ended. If he had taken one of the WOMEN down and held them while the other ran, then he locked the door holding one of the women, then that would have been within the policy of the company. However, he did take down one women, but lost control of both women and the ran out of the store with him in CHASE.
This clearly violated company policy and that was why he was fired. Its about his judgement, not his action. Nobody is saying he didnt have a right to defend himself, he didnt have a right to jeopardize himself in the process. He has no RIGHT to put the company into that kind of Liability.
The fact that all suspects were caught later shows that he was WRONG for chasing them. The chase Added nothing to the case other than making it more risky for the clerk.
Peace.
First, the company has a policy and that policy is "not to provoke, chase or engage a robber. "
This idiot "then chased the pair out of the store where
they fled in a waiting car."
This is really simple. He broke a company policy set in place to protect him. No where in logic does it make sense to "CHASE" anyone who holds a gun. If he had been shot while chasing the suspects, it would have been his own fault, and the shooter could have made a case that "they" were the ones who were then being threatened.
It has happened many times before. Once they were fleeing, they no longer POSED a threat to the clerk.
Second, I agree that while the gun was being pointed at him and a threat made, he had every right to defend himself, but once the threat ended, he should have maintained himself, called the police and NOT placed himself in further jeopardy. How did he know that there wasnt someone else outside holding a gun, like a boyfriend? How did he know that when he ran outside, someone else other than the two WOMEN he was chasing would take a more aggressive action against him?
There are too many variables when running outside the security and safety of the store. Once the women ran out, he should have locked the door and protected himself with the security of a locked down business.
He showed horrible judgement after the threat ended. If he had taken one of the WOMEN down and held them while the other ran, then he locked the door holding one of the women, then that would have been within the policy of the company. However, he did take down one women, but lost control of both women and the ran out of the store with him in CHASE.
This clearly violated company policy and that was why he was fired. Its about his judgement, not his action. Nobody is saying he didnt have a right to defend himself, he didnt have a right to jeopardize himself in the process. He has no RIGHT to put the company into that kind of Liability.
The fact that all suspects were caught later shows that he was WRONG for chasing them. The chase Added nothing to the case other than making it more risky for the clerk.
Peace.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Always heard you can't spell FAILURE without UR ... maybe it should be TOS instead.
tourists24
Well-Known Member
Under the company policy, he had zero right to protect himself in order to keep his job. The mere fact he engaged at all was against policy thus giving the company a reason to fire him. So you cant use the argument that he had any right to defend himself at all. Using that calm reasoning, he should have simply complied with every command of the robber and then "hope" they wouldnt shoot him. Of course a reasonable robber with a gun only wants some cash or "stuff". They would never actually shoot the clerk. So by company policy he should have calmly given in to all demands and then if he makes it through alive, called the police.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Now that's funny ... I don't care who you are!
cachsux
Wah
That's TOS` plan if the TOS household is ever broken into. Oh, and willing providing sexual satisfaction to the intruders if needed.
texan
Well-Known Member
EL PASO, Texas -- A man is recovering in a hospital from a gunshot wound he received during an alleged
attempted robbery at an auto salvage yard Thursday night. El Paso Police Department officials told ABC-7
they believe the man was one of several trying to rob a man who works at the A&M Salvage Yard in the
9700 block of Alameda. Police said an employee was within the security gate of the yard when he said he
was approached by several men who then tried to rob him about 8:30 p.m. Thursday. The employee pulled
out a gun and fired one shot, hitting one of the men. Police did not elaborate on the man's wounds, but said
they are not life-threatening. He is being treated at an area hospital. The others fled, prompting police to launch
a search. Investigators used dogs and even a helicopter to scour the property and surrounding fields. At last
check, no one has been arrested.
Police spokesman Detective Mike Baranyay said the employee told them he shot the weapon in self-defense. "If you feel threatened, you have a right to defend yourself," Baranyay said. "And obviously, if there's multiple
subjects on one individual, that allows you to use a little more force to defend yourself."
attempted robbery at an auto salvage yard Thursday night. El Paso Police Department officials told ABC-7
they believe the man was one of several trying to rob a man who works at the A&M Salvage Yard in the
9700 block of Alameda. Police said an employee was within the security gate of the yard when he said he
was approached by several men who then tried to rob him about 8:30 p.m. Thursday. The employee pulled
out a gun and fired one shot, hitting one of the men. Police did not elaborate on the man's wounds, but said
they are not life-threatening. He is being treated at an area hospital. The others fled, prompting police to launch
a search. Investigators used dogs and even a helicopter to scour the property and surrounding fields. At last
check, no one has been arrested.
Police spokesman Detective Mike Baranyay said the employee told them he shot the weapon in self-defense. "If you feel threatened, you have a right to defend yourself," Baranyay said. "And obviously, if there's multiple
subjects on one individual, that allows you to use a little more force to defend yourself."
Sober,
as i said, its about his decision making for the company. Despite a policy that says he is NOT to engage ,chase or provote, he did all three, at one time. What does this say for his judgement? In the future, the company has to decide if this guy is capable of making the right decisions behind the counter. Yes, I agree, emotions play a big part in this case, but its those emotions that ran away with logic that doomed this clerk and not a company policy.
People have to use logic and stay calm. Thinking rationally should never escape anyone. The FEMALE robbers in this case took no money and fled out the door, was it rational for this guy to give chase and risk his life for a zero gain robbery?
That speaks for itself. The two women attempted to rob the store but were unsuccessful. This reduced the need to chase the women out the door and into an uncontrolled situation where the clerk had no idea what was waiting outside.
As to a UPS driver, we have had many situations like this. IN each case, NOT one driver took any action that further jeopardized his/her life. If a hijacking took place, and the hijackers were driving away after letting the driver go, and the driver chased the truck to try and catch the hijackers and ended up becoming injured, UPS would probably terminate the driver.
This shows a lack of judgement. The truck and the contents are insured, so there is NO REASON to increase risk.
I would defend the driver, but would seriously discuss with the driver the stupidity of his actions.
At UPS, I dont believe we have an actual policy that forbids us from chasing, provoking or engaging anyone who threatens us on the road.
But common sense tells us NOT TO DO IT.
Years ago, we had a hijacking where a female driver was taken hostage, her truck driven to the hills with her duct taped in the back and the trucks contents emptied. After the hijackers took what they wanted, they left her alone in the rear unharmed other than shaken from the experience.
Maybe those supporters of this guy would have rathered "SHE" became some kind of McGiver and cut herself loose from the duct tape and taken on the two male hijackers in some kind of heroric effort?
Lets not be stupid with the case. KEEP IT REAL. Look at the facts, there was NO REASON for this clerk to give chase, NO MONEY was taken.
It was a foolish act on the clerks part AFTER the intial tussle and the chase began.
Peace.
What I cant understand is all of your understandings of the event. NONE of us know what transpired when the women entered the store. NONE of you know what was said by both the clerk or the women. If the women walked in, pulled a gun, asked for money and the clerk complied, gave the cash and the women walked out, then thats one event, but thats NOT what happened here.
( the company who watched the video indicates that they upheld the termination after watching the clerks actions)
Instead, the women walked in, pulled a gun, the CLERK then PROVOKED them by refusing to comply, the women responded by making a THREAT to use the GUN, the clerk, then ENGAGED the women by tackling one of them and going to the ground, the women then ESCAPED and the clerk then CHASED the women out the door.
COMPANY POLICY is clear, it says employees are not to PROVOKE, ENGAGE or CHASE.
Sound pretty clear that this clerk VIOLATED all three of the provisions of the company policy. TERMINATION VALIDATED.
Learn the difference between emotion and rational thinking please.
Peace
tourists24
Well-Known Member
I thought I was doing that. This is what "should" have happened had everyone done their part and been rational and calm. The robbers would have gotten their money and the clerk would still have his job... I wasnt using emotion, its called sarcasm
cachsux
Wah
Lol, ok Mr. Spock. Ordinarily I wouldn't wish anything on most people but, as long as you're not really harmed afterwords, I can't wait to see how you handle a real situation yourself instead of playing Monday morning quarterback. Something tells me you'll be on the news being lead out of the area by the EMTs sobbing and covered in bodily fluids (not all yours).
Those people on the gurneys are the idiots that believe that pretending to be a superhero is actually something that makes sense.
You guys remind me of the movie KICKASS.... it was made for heroes like you gun heroes.
This could have been your CLERK!
Peace
menotyou
bella amicizia
cachsux
Wah
And here's a little scene for you. It's where the EMTs try and squeegee all the liquids your attacks spewed on you off. Hope you didn't get any in your eye.
menotyou
bella amicizia
That avatar is gosh darn it awesome!!!
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
The clerk did not have the luxury of making deliberate, thoughtful, rational decisions about "company policy" when that gun was pointed at him.
"Company policy" is usually designed to protect the COMPANY from liability, not the employee from harm.
When one thoughtfully analyzes this decision using 20/20 hindsight from behind the complete safety of a desk, one can probably conclude that the clerk's actions were not the best ones, and that he could have used better judgement.
However...the clerks judgement at that point was IMPAIRED by the "adrenaline dump" of a life-or-death situation that he did NOT create. He had a GUN pointed at him by a CRIMINAL. He is the VICTIM here, and he does NOT deserve to be victimized any further by suffereing the loss of his job.
If he were a UPS driver...would his actions truly constitute a "cardinal infraction" that would justify his termination under the contract? I am betting a panel would say NO.
cachsux
Wah
Debate company policy on both sides the fact of the matter is in that situation who is going to think "gosh, I wonder if I'll get in trouble with the company"? My only thought will be that I will do whatever it takes to go home at the end of the day, regardless. If it's the robber or me it's not going to be a good day for the robber. Job be damned.
SOBER,
this is where YOU and I and the company disagree. The clerk DID have the opportunity to make a Rational decision. When HE refused to hand over the money, he made a irrational decision to "STAND OFF" with the would be robbers. This decision led to the addition of a threat of using the gun to take the money. At that point, the clerk made another decision to refuse to comply and engage with the would be robbers.
These are TWO decisions that the clerk clearly could have avoided.
The company reviewed the TAPE and concluded the same.
If he had simply given them the money and let them leave, there would have been NO THREAT of use of the gun by the women. The fact that the women used the threat AFTER he refused to hand over the money doesnt make them innocent, as I believe they should be charged with the most serious crime possible just for using the gun.
People are put in positions where rational thought process has to be a number 1 priority. Like police officers. They dont have the luxury of letting their emotions make decisions for them.
This clerk is no different. There is a simple solution to this circumstance. Robber comes in with a gun, asks for the money, clerk hands it over, waits, then calls police.
Anything other than this scenario where the clerk ESCALATES the situation deserves a termination.
Peace
moreluck
golden ticket member
Similar threads
