Company Fires Employee For Fending Off Armed Robber with Gun

Nonsense.

While resisting criminals by any means other than the use of a firearm increases the likelihood of being harmed resisting with a firearm decreases that likelihood.

Passive acceptance of victimization is not a valid option for free people.

Then why is it policy of just about every retail chain? It makes complete business sense to not resist. They are in business to make money not to fight crime. that is the job of law enforcement.

Hate to tell you this, but cops can't be everywhere, and the criminals are becoming more violent , and less apt to leave witnesses. Having been a cop I can tell you , it takes at least 3-5 minutes at a minimum to respond to a crime inprogress.

Because it is not the corporate leaders who are likely to end up dead. They can afford to lose a few clerks. That's better than being sued.

Tell me of one retail chain that encourages employees to resist a robbery? I worked for several inlcuding toys r us, exxon and a bank while in high school and college and it was policy to not resist. They also all banned employees from being armed while on the job.

Yes, and the undertakers will make more money from dead bodies of former employees. No one can make money if they are dead.

Sure, if their employees are killed by invading criminals, they can always hire more, but lawsuits cost a lot of money to defend.

dweimaraner:

Tis better to be fired and tried by 12 than carried by six.

You are right, Earl. And in the crazy, effed-up liberal world of today, it is NOT the employees/customers who sue, it is the robbers and their families who do the suing! Robbers being shot during the course of the robbery usually DO sue the company, and they get the money; whether it be from a settlement or a trial, they win. If the robber gets killed by someone defending themselves, then the robber's family will sue. Seen it time and time again, and during my CCW class that was pounded into your head. So, Earl, you hit the nail right on the head; better to have to pay to bury an employee than pay millions to robbers and their families.

EH! Law enforcement, and just where are they? The other reason the company did what, is that they can write off more on the insurance.

The person directly confronted should not resist and do what the armed robber asks. If another employee can slip out and get help or do what this veteran did, then they should not be punished. There have been numerous cases of an armed person entering a fast food restaurant at closing or just after and rounding up all the employees, forcing them into the freezer or back room and killing them all. Not resisting does not always mean you get away unharmed. It happened here in Alabama (Gadsden) so don't say that never happens.

Law enforcement are just the people that We The People hire to do that job on an everyday basis. That does NOT mean we have given over responsibility for our own protection totally to them and expect them to be there to defend us.

Because left-libs who think that criminals are really nice people who don't want to hurt anyone have captured the system.