Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Dux · Post by **Dux** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:09 pm

A 23 yo former USAF , prevents a robbery on his workplace and his employer fires him because "he violated corporate gun policy" when he slipped out and retrieved his LEGALLY OWNED firearm from his truck and RETURNED to confront the robber that was holding the store manager at GUNPOINT.

After AutoZone employee Devin McClean stopped a serial thief from robbing the local auto parts store in York County, Virginia, some hailed him as a hero, but not the head honchoes at AutoZone. They saw McClean's actions as a reason for termination.

It's not the fact that McClean thwarted the would-be-robber, but how he did it.

When the “fake beard bandit," a repeat offender who has struck more than 30 stores in the area, recently entered the store with a gun in hand, McClean took it upon himself to stop the robbery. McClean darted out the door grabbed his gun, reentered the store and confronted the bandit. He was fired two days later.

Shortly after the incident, a Facebook group called "Boycott Autozone in support of Devin Mclean" popped up, asking community members to call AutoZone in support of McClean. Another campaign against AutoZone that calls for the company to publicly apologize, change its policy and reinstate McClean was also posted on a boycott site.

An Autozone representative told a local news channel that the company has a zero tolerance policy for employees bringing weapons into their stores.

This isn't the first time an employee has been fired for intervening in a robbery. In 2011, four Walmart employees were terminated after they disarmed and subdued a gun-toting assailant. Walmart policy directs employees to "disengage" and "withdraw" when a weapon is drawn.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... muG8Cd3Slv

baffled · Post by **baffled** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:25 pm

From a business point of view, I completely agree with Autozone.

Liability goes beyond the potential reward of an employee stopping this guy's spree.

Dux · Post by **Dux** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:29 pm

"liability"...And that's what's wrong with this country at the moment.

baffled · Post by **baffled** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:49 pm

Dux wrote:"liability"...And that's what's wrong with this country at the moment.

Before I go on, recognize that I am a big proponent of the 2nd Amendment to the point I believe even felons should be allowed to own guns once their debt has been paid. If they're that dangerous, keep 'em in jail.

In many cases, yes, but not in this one.

If I'm Autozone, I could care less if a customer was carrying and confronted that guy. Great. Allow him to take the risk on his own.

An employee is a representative of the company. If things go sideways and a bystander is hurt or killed, that's on Autozone.

Keeping some fake bearded faggot from stealing a few hundred or thousand dollars that is probably covered by insurance vs a multimillion dollar lawsuit.

It's just business yo.

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:04 pm

Dux wrote:"liability"...And that's what's wrong with this country at the moment.

No it isn't. Ideally, the guy did what he did knowing that if successful, he'd still lose his job, but it would be worth it. But an employee who escapes to safety and comes back with a gun is fired all day long, because not firing him creates 20 new problems.

It's Autozone, he didn't lose his medical license. Go work for Pep Boys and feel good about what you did.

baffled · Post by **baffled** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:21 pm

I hate agreeing with Spells.

Protobuilder · Post by **Protobuilder** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:42 pm

baffled wrote:I hate agreeing with Spells.

I agree with both of you and it's raining so that's worse.

Dux · Post by **Dux** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:45 pm

It's a matter of principle guys.

If the manager was shot, then what? Or the robber had a sticker saying "I am the non violent type".

I understand the corporate policy, but that doesn't mean I think its right smart or whatever.

Preservation of human life should trump policies such as that.

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:48 pm

Dux wrote:It's a matter of principle guys.

If the manager was shot, then what? Or the robber had a sticker saying "I am the non violent type".

I understand the corporate policy, but that doesn't mean I think its right smart or whatever.

Preservation of human life should trump policies such as that.

A job is not a right.

He may have done the correct thing in his mind but it doesn't negate AZ's right to fire him. I'd be way more uncomfortable with some sort of backlash/legislation that dictates AZ's policy.

Dux · Post by **Dux** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:51 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Dux wrote:It's a matter of principle guys.

If the manager was shot, then what? Or the robber had a sticker saying "I am the non violent type".

I understand the corporate policy, but that doesn't mean I think its right smart or whatever.

Preservation of human life should trump policies such as that.
A job is not a right.

He may have done the correct thing in his mind but it doesn't negate AZ's right to fire him. I'd be way more uncomfortable with some sort of backlash/legislation that dictates AZ's policy.

Preservation of life is a right and obligation.

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:53 pm

Dux wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Dux wrote:It's a matter of principle guys.

If the manager was shot, then what? Or the robber had a sticker saying "I am the non violent type".

I understand the corporate policy, but that doesn't mean I think its right smart or whatever.

Preservation of human life should trump policies such as that.
A job is not a right.

He may have done the correct thing in his mind but it doesn't negate AZ's right to fire him. I'd be way more uncomfortable with some sort of backlash/legislation that dictates AZ's policy.
Preservation of life is a right and obligation.

This is easily applied to this situation, only in retrospect. In real time, if a bystander or the clerk were killed as a result of the action then we'd have a different story.

Nonetheless, we agree...he may have done the right thing. Doesn't mean he has a right to his job afterward.

baffled · Post by **baffled** » Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:15 am

Pretty much what BD said.

Autozone also sets a pretty bad precedent if they let this guy slide for keeping some worthless, fake bearded coon from stealing a few hundred dollars.

You simply can't have employees who are not part of store security (which I'm guessing this guy wasn't) running to grab their guns so they can break up a robbery.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:09 am

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Dux wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Dux wrote:It's a matter of principle guys.

If the manager was shot, then what? Or the robber had a sticker saying "I am the non violent type".

I understand the corporate policy, but that doesn't mean I think its right smart or whatever.

Preservation of human life should trump policies such as that.
A job is not a right.

He may have done the correct thing in his mind but it doesn't negate AZ's right to fire him. I'd be way more uncomfortable with some sort of backlash/legislation that dictates AZ's policy.
Preservation of life is a right and obligation.

This is easily applied to this situation, only in retrospect. In real time, if a bystander or the clerk were killed as a result of the action then we'd have a different story.

Nonetheless, we agree...he may have done the right thing. Doesn't mean he has a right to his job afterward.

AZ has the right to fire him. People have the right to boycott AZ for having done so. Balance pertains.

Protobuilder · Post by **Protobuilder** » Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:37 am

DrDonkeyLove wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Dux wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Dux wrote:It's a matter of principle guys.

If the manager was shot, then what? Or the robber had a sticker saying "I am the non violent type".

I understand the corporate policy, but that doesn't mean I think its right smart or whatever.

Preservation of human life should trump policies such as that.
A job is not a right.

He may have done the correct thing in his mind but it doesn't negate AZ's right to fire him. I'd be way more uncomfortable with some sort of backlash/legislation that dictates AZ's policy.
Preservation of life is a right and obligation.

This is easily applied to this situation, only in retrospect. In real time, if a bystander or the clerk were killed as a result of the action then we'd have a different story.

Nonetheless, we agree...he may have done the right thing. Doesn't mean he has a right to his job afterward.
AZ has the right to fire him. People have the right to boycott AZ for having done so. Balance pertains.

Yes.

Do you guys who are arguing this really want to see a world where citizens walk around armed trying to solve every problem they see? I realize that cops aren't the most trustworthy people in the world and that gun laws don't deter criminals. However, when I hear this kind of thing, I am glad that there are discussions for laws to keep people who legally have guns from whipping them out in a line at the ATM because they feel threatened or from opening fire at the traffic light because they thought they saw a criminal a few lanes away.

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:40 am

Dux wrote:It's a matter of principle guys.

If the manager was shot, then what? Or the robber had a sticker saying "I am the non violent type".

I understand the corporate policy, but that doesn't mean I think its right smart or whatever.

Preservation of human life should trump policies such as that.

Why do you hate free market capitalism?

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:35 am

Dux wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Dux wrote:It's a matter of principle guys.

If the manager was shot, then what? Or the robber had a sticker saying "I am the non violent type".

I understand the corporate policy, but that doesn't mean I think its right smart or whatever.

Preservation of human life should trump policies such as that.
A job is not a right.

He may have done the correct thing in his mind but it doesn't negate AZ's right to fire him. I'd be way more uncomfortable with some sort of backlash/legislation that dictates AZ's policy.
Preservation of life is a right and obligation.

You don't know nuthin' Dux.

Read this: http://allrecipes.com/recipes/desserts/cookies/
And then get to baking. This is the way of wisdom.

Pinky · Post by **Pinky** » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:30 pm

Preservation of life should have kept the guy from reentering the store. Although I don't remember the law in VA on this matter, this guy would be on shaky legal ground even in some very gun-friendly states. Armed defense of another is usually not justified by a "reasonable fear" as armed self defense is.

I would be more sympathetic if the guy had carried in the store against company policy and did not have a chance to flee, but Autozone would still have the right to enforce whatever asinine policy it wanted.

IGX

Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.

Re: Prevents robbery - gets fired.