Walmart workers fired after disarming a robber ?

Blanca BusaLess

Suffers from PBSD
Donating Member
Registered
4 Walmart employees fired after disarming gunman caught shoplifting - ksl.com


Because they violated company policy ? :wtf:
So the security guards see a theft go down , confront the guy , realize he's armed and disarm him, preventing a possible mass murder right ?
According to Walmart policy , WRONG ?
Policy says when a weapon most especially a gun is involved they are supposed to throw up their hands and submit to the will of the armed individual in hopes to diffuse the situation.
The two guards in question said he was one door away from being in main store front area where hundreds of 'sitting ducks' (her the security guards words) were.

Ok so they disarm a guy and instead of being hailed as heroes they are fired ?
Can anyone explain this in words that make sense or are you like me and think they are heroes and should be treated as such ?
 
4 Walmart employees fired after disarming gunman caught shoplifting - ksl.com


Because they violated company policy ? :wtf:
So the security guards see a theft go down , confront the guy , realize he's armed and disarm him, preventing a possible mass murder right ?
According to Walmart policy , WRONG ?
Policy says when a weapon most especially a gun is involved they are supposed to throw up their hands and submit to the will of the armed individual in hopes to diffuse the situation.
The two guards in question said he was one door away from being in main store front area where hundreds of 'sitting ducks' (her the security guards words) were.

Ok so they disarm a guy and instead of being hailed as heroes they are fired ?
Can anyone explain this in words that make sense or are you like me and think they are heroes and should be treated as such ?

They should be rewarded, not fired.
Mind you, if I worked for WalMart, I wouldn't bother trying to stop anyone from robbing the joint.
 
They should be rewarded, not fired.
Mind you, if I worked for WalMart, I wouldn't bother trying to stop anyone from robbing the joint.

Of course your life and mine aren't worth any items in the store. Face value it does seem robber was only trying to take merchandise but why was he armed? How are they supposed to have known that he had no intent of harming anyone?
 
Wait! If I'm armed I can do anything in Walmart without being stopped? Guess they hire security guards to only handle helpless criminals.
 
Wait! If I'm armed I can do anything in Walmart without being stopped? Guess they hire security guards to only handle helpless criminals.

As long as one doesn't start shoplifting while armed, their all good. Personally I can't imagine going to Walmart without at least one gun, lol. But then I don't take things that done belong to me.
 
While what they did was commendable, they violated strict company policy by engaging an armed assailant. Corporate policy was not adheared to. What if things went the other direction and these guys got hurt? Someone would be shot and Wal-Mart would get sued. I realize that this doesn't seem fair however rules are rules.
 
While what they did was commendable, they violated strict company policy by engaging an armed assailant. Corporate policy was not adheared to. What if things went the other direction and these guys got hurt? Someone would be shot and Wal-Mart would get sued. I realize that this doesn't seem fair however rules are rules.

I totally agree with you to a certaint point. It would open Wally World to unbeliveable law suits if a customer had been injured or killed. BUT, these were security guards and in my opinion, did exactly what I would expect them to do. BUT not an hourly employee, unless he was threaten and HE THOUGH HIS LIFE WAS IN DANGER ! Key Words :thumbsup:
 
While what they did was commendable, they violated strict company policy by engaging an armed assailant. Corporate policy was not adheared to. What if things went the other direction and these guys got hurt? Someone would be shot and Wal-Mart would get sued. I realize that this doesn't seem fair however rules are rules.

+1 on this.
I work for wal-mart and yes the policy is very clear on these matters. In fact it was our store for which these rules were set into place company wide.
Several years ago a female associate noticed a guy shoplifting and chased him into the parking lot. The suspect got to his car, turned around and shot the lady. She died in the parking lot all for a few dollars worth of merchandise.
The policy is strict for that reason because no ones life is worth something that frivolous.
 
By the way the security guards are rent a cop and really have no real LEO authority. It just a visual deterrent and all they can really do is call the sheriffs dept if need be.
 
This my friends is what happens when you have a sue happy country....
 
My first thought was they shouldn't have done it and they should be fired. After reading the story, this was more self defence than stoppping a shoplifter. They did what any person would have done.

Shame on you wally mart.:moon:
 
+1 on this.
I work for wal-mart and yes the policy is very clear on these matters. In fact it was our store for which these rules were set into place company wide.
Several years ago a female associate noticed a guy shoplifting and chased him into the parking lot. The suspect got to his car, turned around and shot the lady. She died in the parking lot all for a few dollars worth of merchandise.
The policy is strict for that reason because no ones life is worth something that frivolous.
What do you do for Wal-Mart?
 
They were not security guards but loss prevention agents and they made sure to say that on tv so I think there is a difference.
And to the ones that say they should have done nothing or their actions could have created a worse problem I ask you this.
Let's say they observed him stealing and then saw his gun and decided to do nothing because policy states they must do so. Now seconds later before police can arrive he goes crazy and kills twenty people. Later it's found out these people knew he was armed and did nothing . Would this not be grounds for an even larger lawsuit ?
 
thats horse****, fired them for real, that is a crock of ****, what if they had followed policy and backed off, and the first person the gunman would of seen was the person who fired them and put one in his head on the way out the door, i bet he would of wished they stopped the gunman then
 
They were not security guards but loss prevention agents and they made sure to say that on tv so I think there is a difference.
And to the ones that say they should have done nothing or their actions could have created a worse problem I ask you this.
Let's say they observed him stealing and then saw his gun and decided to do nothing because policy states they must do so. Now seconds later before police can arrive he goes crazy and kills twenty people. Later it's found out these people knew he was armed and did nothing . Would this not be grounds for an even larger lawsuit ?

None of those guys was loss prevention. They were escorting him to the loss prevention office when he pulled the gun.
Now I fully agree with the guy who had a gun pointed at his back that the last thing on his mind was wal mart policy. His life was in immediate danger and IMO his actions were justified to save himself and other.
Policy aside, wal-mart will have a lawsuit on there hands that will be settled out of court. Guaranteed.
 
Back
Top