Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tourists24" data-source="post: 920758" data-attributes="member: 11490"><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>