Armed Shell Clerk stops robbery, but loses job

I read the topic subject and said to myself 'another one of these?'

Are people still surprised when they violate a company policy that they get fired? tbh, if you defend your life by pulling a gun, it's worth losing your job. The policy sucks, but you're still alive.
 
Gillham said:
I read the topic subject and said to myself 'another one of these?'

Are people still surprised when they violate a company policy that they get fired? tbh, if you defend your life by pulling a gun, it's worth losing your job. The policy sucks, but you're still alive.
Click to expand...

He's not complaining. His supporters are.
 
MConnelly2 said:
It's not about the $50 in the drawer, it's about the cashier's life that a robber is intending to end.
Click to expand...

Not the opinion of the super mega corps that run the convenience stores.

Cashiers are overhead, a dime a dozen, and are expendable.

One gets shot, there are a hundred more behind him waiting for the job.

Republican paradise.
 
Spanz said:
so the lesson here? shoot the bg, dump the body in the Merrimack river, go back to work?
Click to expand...

the lessen is screw shell.

some one comes in to rob you, cover your self, hand them the keys on the way out, and let them back the the truck up and clean it out.
 
MConnelly2 said:
It's not about the $50 in the drawer, it's about the cashier's life that a robber is intending to end.
Click to expand...

It's contagious. The fact that most chains have this policy means that any store that does not can be shown to be "going against prevailing industry safety standard". Add to that that allowing someone to carry, and not provide a comprehensive training program, further exposes the store allowing carry by staff. It is far cheaper to train a new employee that defend a suit. I would also gather than a suit against a store for allowing carry would be much more appealing to contingency counsel than a suit against a store for not allowing staff to defend themselves.

For an example of a couple of unarmed gas station clerks, check out this article from 1972:http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...9lHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OIAMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5474,1639679
 
Last edited:
dreadedtrash said:
That policy is standard across the industry. They figure it isn't worth the potential lawsuit for the $50 in the drawer.
Click to expand...

Except thats not the reality of the situation. You give him the money in the drawer, now you are counting on his good will and honesty to survive.

I'm actually someone who believes that deadly force purely in defense of property is NOT justified. But this is not one of those cases. As an example, a couple of years ago a man was on the phone with 911 telling them that his neighbors house was being robbed. He exited his home and shot a robber who was carrying a tv away from the house in the back. Not justified.

But this is not about property. This is about making sure you are not dependent on the good will of a criminal for your survival.
 
Except thats not the reality of the situation. You give him the money in the drawer, now you are counting on his good will and honesty to survive.
Click to expand...
To OP was not saying that being unarmed and giving the money would assure the safety of the clerk; just that it would minimize the chance of a successful suit against the store owner.
 
Gillham said:
I read the topic subject and said to myself 'another one of these?'

Are people still surprised when they violate a company policy that they get fired? tbh, if you defend your life by pulling a gun, it's worth losing your job. The policy sucks, but you're still alive.
Click to expand...
you know if they never fired him no one would have ever heard of this company or this robbery attempt. just because it is policy doesn't mean it is right
 
dcmdon said:
Except thats not the reality of the situation. You give him the money in the drawer, now you are counting on his good will and honesty to survive.
Click to expand...

The gas station chain, of course, doesn't care about any of that. They'd rather have the lawyerism in their handbook that supposedly reduces their costs than care about, what amounts to them, to be a disposable asset. In corporations people are very often not really people- they're just "assets" that get shuffled around. Big corporations typically (there are exceptions, but probably not the majority) don't give a shit about people who work for them, only usually with regard to whatever the person's value is relative to the bottom line.

-Mike
 
How dare he wanting to stay alive? I mean, he has everything... A great 7.50/hour job, where he's safe and secure, and with that comes a great life and wealth. Now, the clerk even wants to protect himself? These damn hard working people know no boundaries.
 
frenchman said:
How dare he wanting to stay alive? I mean, he has everything... A great 7.50/hour job, where he's safe and secure, and with that comes a great life and wealth. Now, the clerk even wants to protect himself? These damn hard working people know no boundaries.
Click to expand...

[laugh][sad2]
 
MConnelly2 said:
It's not about the $50 in the drawer, it's about the cashier's life that a robber is intending to end.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, that isn't the reason that "corporate" has this policy. They don't give two sh'ts about the safety of their employees.

The purpose of this policy is all about avoiding a lawsuit (money).
 
I'm going to stick my neck out and support the Employer.

The attendant did not have to work for that company. He knew that if he ever had to use his gun, he'd probably get fired. So it happened. Oh well move on. You make your choices and you live with the consequences. Nobody forced him to work for that company.

He made the right choice. Its a lot easier to get another $12/hr job than it is to get a new life. Congratulations to the employee.

Let the market decide. I think you'll find it works fine. People will boycott the stations, at least for a while and the employee will probably be swamped with job offers by freedom loving Americans.
 
Eddie said:
Bullshit, that isn't the reason that "corporate" has this policy. They don't give two sh'ts about the safety of their employees.

The purpose of this policy is all about avoiding a lawsuit (money).
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Plain and simple.

I once worked for a municipality that had a no weapons policy in their employee handbook. My boss, a woman in her 60s knew I was a gun nut. For about a month, we ended up working late on a project. Our office was not in the best area. On several occasions she let slip something like "You know, I think people like us should be able to have tools to defend ourselves. But I've never shot a gun in my life". It was a tacit green light to carry.

Of course I knew that if anyone other than my boss knew, I'd probably lose my job. It was a chance I took. What she didn't know was that I had been carrying since day 1 on the job. There are really only a few circumstances where I don't carry. 1) into schools or school events 2) into buildings with no guns signage or anywhere else its legally prohibited 3) when I'm going to be drinking.
 
Last edited:
These companies are not one bit interested in either the lives or welfare of the people that work for them.
You are employee number 43725.
Get popped in robbery?
Employee number 43726 will mop up the floor and have the place open 10 minutes after they haul you out in a bag.
The only person that's going to look out for you, is you.
I read somewere that a convenience store clerk is more likely to get popped than a police officer on average
 
Boghog1 said:
you know if they never fired him no one would have ever heard of this company or this robbery attempt. just because it is policy doesn't mean it is right
Click to expand...

Oh don't worry, we're on the same page - the policy sucks - but the clerk picked his life over his job. I say there's a win somewhere in this (and other) ****ed up situations.
 
On the bright side, the clerk walks away alive and well. Nashua PD also agrees the clerk did nothing wrong!
 
it's a lose, lose either way. many convenenience store companies (cumberland farms and 7/11 come immediately to mind) will fire you even if you "do everything right" and hand the money over. cumberland farms specifically has a policy where if the robber steals over a certain dollar amount, you lose your job. if i'm going to get fired either way, i'm carrying and staying alive.
 
yanici said:
Yeah, it's cheaper for corporate to bury an employee that was murdered during a robbery than it is to handle a lawsuit by a scumbag. Go figure.
Click to expand...
This. Exactly. Welcome to Obama's Amerika... where your life isn't worth dogshit anymore because some sleazy lawyer will sue and win if you try to defend yourself.

Cower in place. Shell Strong.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Long Island Politician Plans to Deputize Armed Civilians
Replies
6
Views
172
hunt4riches
H
Trigger job on a S&W Bodyguard 380?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
851
drgrant
drgrant
Wild dash camera video shows moment armed suspect learns driver has a gun: Victim suffers gunshot wound to chest after opening fire on armed suspect
Replies
11
Views
281
walter62
walter62
Pulse-pounding video shows Denver cops gun down suspect holding 7-Eleven clerk hostage
Replies
2
Views
200
Animal357
A
Worcester PD - Going after the guns but how about the perps…
Replies
14
Views
549
houdini
houdini
Back
Top Bottom