Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 920752" data-attributes="member: 17969">There are two points here.First, the company has a policy and that policy is &quot;not to provoke, chase or engage a robber. &quot;This idiot &quot;then chased the pair out of the store where they fled in a waiting car.&quot;This is really simple.&nbsp; He broke a company policy set in place to protect him.&nbsp; No where in logic does it make sense to &quot;CHASE&quot; anyone who holds a gun.&nbsp; 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 &quot;they&quot; were the ones who were then being threatened.It has happened many times before.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; How did he know that there wasnt someone else outside holding a gun, like a boyfriend?&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Its about his judgement, not his action.&nbsp; Nobody is saying he didnt have a right to defend himself, he didnt have a right to jeopardize himself in the process.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The chase Added nothing to the case other than making it more risky for the clerk.Peace.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 920752, member: 17969"] There are two points here. First, the company has a policy and that policy is "[SIZE=5][SIZE=2][SIZE=3]not [/SIZE][SIZE=3]to provoke, chase or engage a robber. "[/SIZE] [/SIZE][/SIZE] This idiot "[SIZE=5]then chased the pair out of the store where they fled in a waiting car." [/SIZE] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification