AutoZone employee fired after taking action against bandit

[Abraham]

Being armed or having access to a gun doesn't make us LEO's.

I will defend myself and my loved ones, but I'm not going to put myself in harm's way for you or your property.

Am I uncaring or in some way wrong for my personal mind-set?

I don't think so.

Some of use with CHLs need to think very carefully about what possessing a CHL means.

[baldeagle]

Being armed or having access to a gun doesn't make us LEO's.

I will defend myself and my loved ones, but I'm not going to put myself in harm's way for you or your property.

Am I uncaring or in some way wrong for my personal mind-set?

I don't think so.

Some of use with CHLs need to think very carefully about what possessing a CHL means.

Really? What does this section of the penal code mean?

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

You certainly have the right to choose to not intervene, but the law specifically states that your intervention, should you choose to do it, is justified.

So what exactly is it that you want us to think about regarding possessing a CHL?

[Abraham]

baldeagle,

I understand under certain circumstances an armed response by a CHLer may very well be legal, but that's one very big, circumstantial step.

As an example, you see someone you're certain is a victim and go charging in with your gun drawn and it turns out he/she is the perpetrator. There are endless varieties of ways this type of things can go wrong for you when you step up to the plate, absolutely certain you're doing the right thing.

Say goodbye to your freedom and welcome to financial ruin.

Me, I'm defending myself and my loved ones only.

[baldeagle]

baldeagle,

I understand under certain circumstances an armed response by a CHLer may very well be legal, but that's one very big, circumstantial step.

As an example, you see someone you're certain is a victim and go charging in with your gun drawn and it turns out he/she is the perpetrator. There are endless varieties of ways this type of things can go wrong for you when you step up to the plate, absolutely certain you're doing the right thing.

Say goodbye to your freedom and welcome to financial ruin.

Me, I'm defending myself and my loved ones only.

There isn't a lot of ambiguity when an armed robber walks into your store and points his gun at the manager.

[Jumping Frog]

As I see it, the problem is too much hiding behind " Liability issues".

The employer has rules for employees. This specific employee made a decision to break one or more of these rules. The employee was terminated as he chose to break the rules of his employer. Such actions typically have consequences.

Now, hypothetically, let's say the employer goes against its previously applied rules, and cuts this guy a break. He's a good guy, and he did a good thing, even though he broke the rules, etc.

Now the next employee, who is a member of a protected class, and who carries a firearm onto the premise, and who doesn't do it to stop a robbery, is next to be terminated. That employee claims disparate treatment, and discrimination, based upon membership in a protected class. That employee sues and wins.

Now, in that worst case scenario, someone, but clearly none of us, will have to pay the price.

I learned many years ago, not to play favorites amongst employees, even the ones who created or had created the "reservoir of good will."

I am not familiar with the employment laws of Virginia. I do know one responsibility of good management is to limit, mitigate, or eliminate the employer's exposure to risk. This is one of the reason an employer has rules to control the conduct of an employer. When an employer minimizes risk, he might also limit liability.

Our litigious society and society's current love for "zero tolerance" has driven employers to this extreme. I am sure there is a phalanx of lawyers who had advised the employer in the past, and who continue to provide legal advice.

In these situations lawyers are not paid to use common sense. Rather, they are paid to provide the best advice to mitigate and/or eliminate liability.

I want an attorney who will:

1.) keep me out of trouble.

2.) help me out of trouble if I should so find myself.

3.) protect my employer.

My attorney can keep the common sense advice for other clients. I want an attorney who will give me sound advice and, if necessary, fight and win for me. You know, like the lawyers who work for Auto Zone.

Here's a question: you have a business. When you deal with your attorney, do you want common sense advice, or the advice which will keep you out of court, and best support you if you have to go to court?

In my employment, I've had to deal with hundreds of cases covering employee vs contractor status, challenged terminations, EEOC claims/lawsuits, workers comp issues, and truck-related motor vehicle accidents. When I say "defend", I do not mean I am the attorney, I mean it has been in my area of responsibility from the company management perspective. I've also had to deal with the joy-joy of managing document production in response to discovery, depositions, due diligence, and settlement negotiations or claims payments. In terms of company risk, the challenges by various states on employee vs contractor status are by far and away our most serious business risk.

Leave common sense at the door. I want bullet-proof contracts, policies, and procedures. Then I want the policies and procedures followed without fail.

Don't blame me or modern American corporations. Blame the Plaintiffs bar and the Democrats for creating this litigious environment. FACT: the Plaintiffs attorneys have consistently been the one of the largest single donor groups to the Democrat party for decades.

That's the bottom line. I understand both sides of the situation, but I have to side with management.

[nightmare]

I will defend myself and my loved ones, but I'm not going to put myself in harm's way for you or your property.

You have the right to make that choice but that employee had a legal and moral right to defend his coworker.

[Abraham]

baldeagle,

You're right - in the scenario you've listed, there's no ambiguity, but if the bad guy's isn't a direct threat to me or my loved ones, I'm not going to intervene.

Of course, I'm not going to cover my eyes and hope for the best either. I will be ready as I can be, but I won't act unless it's absolutely necessary to defend me and/or mine.

I'm not an LEO.

[philip964]

Thanks for posting, won't go in an Autozone again.

Oh BTW, I am also currently banning UPS, Intel and Levi's, for their stance on the Boy Scouts. Currently Levi's has lost something like 9 billion dollars in revenue since I banned them in 1993.

My ban on Costco hasn't worked out so well. Their stock has gone from 65 to like 98 in the couple of years since a CHL was shot and killed at their store in Las Vegas.

[WildBill]

Currently Levi's has lost something like 9 billion dollars in revenue since I banned them in 1993.

You must buy a lot of jeans.

[longtooth]

We have had WAY too many threads drift lately.

Lets leave UPS, Intel, and Levi's out of this one please.

[C-dub]

I wonder what Autozone would be saying if it were a customer that had stopped the robbery with their gun? Who thinks the customer would have been chastised for wreckless behavior or even banned from the store?

[JALLEN]

I wonder what Autozone would be saying if it were a customer that had stopped the robbery with their gun? Who thinks the customer would have been chastised for wreckless behavior or even banned from the store?

If it were done cleanly with no ramifications, no employees hurt or killed, no customers menaced, perp captured or dead, they would say next to nothing. Their liability insurance wouldn't be invoked. Managements are not much concerned when things so smoothly. It's the chance for something dreadful to happen, very costly since no matter who does what, the company gets sued and has deep pockets, they are unhappy.

In some places, it is not inconceivable that the customers shoots and kills the perp, the store gets sued by the perp's heirs for wrongful death for failing to insure the perp's safety. It seems absurd, but not inconceivable in these strange and perilous times.

[Dragonfighter]

baldeagle,

You're right - in the scenario you've listed, there's no ambiguity, but if the bad guy's isn't a direct threat to me or my loved ones, I'm not going to intervene.

Of course, I'm not going to cover my eyes and hope for the best either. I will be ready as I can be, but I won't act unless it's absolutely necessary to defend me and/or mine.

I'm not an LEO.

em. mine

And an LEO has no duty to protect you says the Supreme Court.

Let's look at the "me and mine" litmus test. Now as a CHL I'm not going on the prowl looking for good to do, which is more a vigilante than an LEO anyway. The PRIMARY reason I got a CHL is so I could protect "me and mine" in more areas and circumstances than would otherwise be legally allowed. So far, so good.

Now I am sitting in church, "me and mine" take up a whole pew which as it happens is fairly close to a side door. Now let's pretend a bad guy comes in the back , starts waving a gun around and targets people to shoot. Being the condition yellow guy I notice this unfolding and my well trained spouse and son-in-law manage to get everyone scurrying out of the side door. Now I have no family in the danger zone but wait, what about my brothers and sisters in Christ. Do I cower, call the PD and be a good witness or do I, with my weapon, training and proficiency end the threat to everyone in attendance? What is my MORAL obligation vs. legal duty?

I see my life long best friend being attacked, and threatened at gun point. I am not in the fight, so do I hold back, call PD, and play a good witness until some action on part of the bad guy makes the choice moot? Or do I intervene? Is he of "me and mine"?

Okay, those were easy. Now I am at my place of employment and our hypothetical bad guy walks in, points a gun at another employee and says "Give all of the cash or I'll kill you!" I, once again manage to slip out, get my weapon and am faced with the choice: Knowing the prevalence of robbers killing their victims to eliminate witnesses, do I call PD, stay where it is safe and play "good witness" or do I take the calculated risk and intervene saving possibly a casual work acquaintance? Is this person "me and mine"?

FWIW, this mantra, "I am not an LEO." is a cop out (no pun intended). The sad reality is LEO's are an after the fact player. With the occasional happenstance not withstanding, they are not in a position to intervene until the deed's been done. It would rend my heart should I be in a position with the equipment and ability to stop such horrors; instead I stay safely out of the way, call PD and "be a good witness" while some miscreant destroys an innocent life.

I will defend myself and my loved ones, but I'm not going to put myself in harm's way for you or your property.

So I guess military, police, fire and such are out of the question for your employment choices? I hope you'll forgive me as I defend those I am afforded the opportunity whilst you stay out of harm's way, call PD and be a good witness. Oh yeah, provided the opportunity I would defend you and yours as well even if you don't feel compelled to return the courtesy.

[Abraham]

"And an LEO has no duty to protect you says the Supreme Court"

But you do?

I do?

By virtue of getting a CHL, one adopts the mantle of righting violent wrongs wherever they announce themselves?

Go through the effort of getting a CHL and I now have the burden of protecting one and all?

Do I have that right?

If I do, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[barstoolguru]

Cowards such as AutoZone's managers hide unders the skirts of Zero Tolerence.

It’s all about money and liability, cheaper to have employees held up or shot they it is to pay out on law suits. Insurance will cover something’s but not others; as some say “a will tort”