Veteran loses job due to breaking a robbery (Liberty Bowl)

[Mr Janny]

did you even read the article link in this thread. robber more often than not will turn tail and run.

where are you getting that? In this case the guy ran. But that's not a basis to assume that they will run more often than not.


And even if it were true. It would still be more cost efficient for businesses to have a policy requiring their employees not get involved. Because the cases where violence does occur involve so much more potential loss.

[longtimeclone]

robber more often than not will turn tail and run.

Agreed, given this was an autozone the robber was probably expecting little resistance and when he was met with some didn't think it was worth the trouble.

[besserheimerphat]

Watch the videos of convenience stores being robbed when the person behind the counter pulls a gun. What's the bad guy do 9 out of 10 times? Runs like a *****. Is it always the best answer? Absolutely not, but in the right hands with the proper training, it can be a huge deterrent. The issue becomes will the person behind the counter make the right choice. Most people that work behind a counter probably aren't going to make the right choice or even know how to act in a situation like this. That's why companies have the policies that they do. It's essentially a Catch-22.

So, do you think Autozone should require all its employees to take firearms training, get a concealed carry permit (cause a gun under the counter does you no good in the air-freshener aisle) and maintain certification as a qualified marksman? Same question for Wal-Mart, Casey's, Ankeny School District, movie theaters...

[Stewo]

So, do you think Autozone should require all its employees to take firearms training, get a concealed carry permit (cause a gun under the counter does you no good in the air-freshener aisle) and maintain certification as a qualified marksman? Same question for Wal-Mart, Casey's, Ankeny School District, movie theaters...

Really? That's what you think I was getting at?

[besserheimerphat]

Has nothing to do with the military and I'm not using it as a reference point. Not everyone that totes a gun during a robbery has the intention of using it. To say that once a bad guy sees a good guy with a gun, he automatically fires his weapon is just wrong. Again, referencing my post earlier, a lot, maybe even most of the time people only use a gun as a way of gaining control and will many times flee when someone else brings a gun into the mix. Most robbers are smart enough to realize that being shot and killed isn't worth the petty items they are attempting to steal.

I deleted my post you quoted after seeing your earlier post, which you referenced here, because you answered my question. Sorry I missed it.

In regard to the bolded - but somehow it is worth the employee risking their life for those same items? I don't see the incentive to the employee to confront the would-be robber, and neither does Autozone.

[baller21]

where are you getting that? In this case the guy ran. But that's not a basis to assume that they will run more often than not.


And even if it were true. It would still be more cost efficient for businesses to have a policy requiring their employees not get involved. Because the cases where violence does occur involve so much more potential loss.

youtube

[baller21]

I deleted my post you quoted after seeing your earlier post, which you referenced here, because you answered my question. Sorry I missed it.

In regard to the bolded - but somehow it is worth the employee risking their life for those same items? I don't see the incentive to the employee to confront the would-be robber, and neither does Autozone.

well the employees life is already at risk if someone's pointing a gun at them isn't it. Essentially you"re just calling their bluff and as Kenny Rodgers would say "You got to know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run."

[Mr Janny]

Really? That's what you think I was getting at?

no, of course not. That would be silly. We're talking about basically minimum wage employees here. A business like Autozone doesn't want it's employees carrying guns. It would be a huge risk, and not be cost effective. The bad publicity they are getting from this incident is nothing compared to what would happen if an armed employee accidentally shot a customer over a $500 robbery attempt. That's why having the policy that they do about non involvement makes so much sense.

[Mr Janny]

youtube

I see. Quality source material, there.

[00clone]

So, do you think Autozone should require all its employees to take firearms training, get a concealed carry permit (cause a gun under the counter does you no good in the air-freshener aisle) and maintain certification as a qualified marksman? Same question for Wal-Mart, Casey's, Ankeny School District, movie theaters...

Did I miss an article about a rash of air freshener thefts? Damn, mine hangs right out in the open on the mirror! Just asking for a smash and grab. Hang on, brb

<heads for the garage>

[besserheimerphat]

well the employees life is already at risk if someone's pointing a gun at them isn't it. Essentially you"re just calling their bluff and as Kenny Rodgers would say "You got to know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run."

Sure it is. That's why the bad guy brought the gun in the first place - to provide sufficient threat so that he can get what he wants. And when the employee pulls a gun as well, the bad guy can choose either fight or flight. Of course we can hope/assume the bad guy will run, but he could also start shooting which is bad for everyone (including bystanders). If the employee actually injured or killed the bad buy, I'd assume he's got some major legal trouble coming his way as well.

That's a hell of a bluff.

[Stewo]

no, of course not. That would be silly. We're talking about basically minimum wage employees here. A business like Autozone doesn't want it's employees carrying guns. It would be a huge risk, and not be cost effective. The bad publicity they are getting from this incident is nothing compared to what would happen if an armed employee accidentally shot a customer over a $500 robbery attempt. That's why having the policy that they do about non involvement makes so much sense.

And that's why I had said earlier that this is exactly why most companies have policies in place to not allow their employees to carry any sort of weapon. It's a good rule. Especially, when you take into account what the general population knows about guns, knives, etc and their training on them (or lack thereof). I'm not saying that McDonald's employees should be allowed to carry weapons while cooking fries, but what I am saying is that many people do have a background with firearms and know how to conduct themselves while carrying them. It's certainly a double-edged sword. I "get" both sides. Therefore, there isn't a perfect answer.

[oldman]

Anyone remember the little turd from the Twin Cities that shot and killed two convenience store clerks in Iowa last year? IMO, if someone is bringing out firearms, and looking for money, especially in these times, I'd say there is a very real possibility they would go ahead and use it, whether you are armed or not.

[00clone]

Anyone remember the little turd from the Twin Cities that shot and killed two convenience store clerks in Iowa last year? IMO, if someone is bringing out firearms, and looking for money, especially in these times, I'd say there is a very real possibility they would go ahead and use it, whether you are armed or not.

I got the impression that situation wasn't so much about the money than the dirtball was on a spree and killing them fit into his agenda.

[oldman]

You might be right, but bottom line is, if someone has a gun pointed at me, I'm going to assume he's going to use it.