TexasCHLforum.com

DParker wrote:OK. Then I guess we'll just regard your "IOW, he acted before fully evaluating the situation" conclusion as something of a mystery.

Here's the problem. The original story contains conflicting statements, two of them from the company spokeswoman:

The security tape showed the female co-worker struggling with the robber over the cash-register drawer, Casey said.

"We have a statement from both [Beverly] and the female employee," Casey said. "Neither one of them say anything about her being attacked, hurt or anything, and the video we have substantiates it."

Beverly said that from his vantage point, he thought she was being attacked.

So which was it? What is "struggling" vesus "being attacked"? I just don't know. It's a typically muddled TV news story.

- Jim

DParker wrote:So there was a scream and a physical altercation taking place. Now I'm not sure what you mean by "fully evaluating" the situation, but it sounds like he had reasonable grounds for drawing a conclusion in the heat of the moment that she was being assaulted. How much time should he have taken before acting? Should he have given up the advantage of surprise by announcing his presence and asking what was going on?

I don't know. Based only on this story, I don't have enough information.

Maybe the woman clerk was resisting the robber, even though she was not supposed to. Maybe the robber just pushed her away from the cash register. I don't know if Mr. Beverly was in a position to be sure that the robber did not have a knife or handgun, which could have resulted in the other clerk being stabbed or shot.

The only point I have been trying to make is that this situation is not as simple as a big, bad, heartless company unfairly firing a hero (though they probably are big, bad, and heartless ).

- Jim

I have no way of knowing what the company policy on employees being assaulted is. I'll bet it doesn't recommend intervening, though.

The story says that the robber was not attacking the woman cashier. Mr. Beverly thought she was. IOW, he acted before fully evaluating the situation.

I'll rephrase what I wrote earlier: This firing sounds like bureaucratic excess; but it's what we get in a world where lawyers and risk-averse executives make the rules, and employees are expendable.

- Jim

I agree on that. The guy who was fired did not start the incident. We don't whether the woman clerk resisted the robbery initially or whether the robber attacked her directly. That's why I said the company should have figured out what happened and reinforced the employees' training.

- Jim

I'm going to play the devil's advocate for the purpose of discussion.

A retail business has three alternatives:

• Hire armed guards.
• Arm their employees and train them appropriately.
• Tell the employees to give robbers whatever they want.

The first two routes are expensive. If they arm regular employees, they need to pay them more than the minimum wage that they probably get now, because those employees will be better qualified. The company also runs a risk of an employee being killed or injuring an innocent party, who could then sue the company.

If they give the robber the contents of the cash register and a couple of cartons of cigarettes, the company is out a few hundred dollars at most. It's just the cost of doing business for them.

I'm 100% for armed and properly trained resistance by anyone, but for a woman to fight a male robber with her bare hands (which it sounds like happened here) is poor tactics.

I should add that I think firing the guy was an overreaction and created bad publicity for the company. I think he should have been "counseled," as they call it these days.

BTW, I have never heard of this Linda Casey.

- Jim