Jay wrote:
Apparently people are making a big deal about this. I actually agree with the corporate policy here. The odds of actually getting shot in an armed robbery are near zero unless you provoke the guy. He wants the money, not a murder charge. Risking peoples lives by escalating it over $2,000 is retarded. The company has insurance that will cover the loss of the money
Unprovoked shootings during robberies.... near zero? Come on Jay. That shit happens and nobody should be forced to be defenseless against a piece of shit who is going to, at the least, threaten their life. I do believe the company has the right to make rules for their property and the man accepted those rules when he took employment there. I believe, like many establishments, that Autozone has this policy because it will cost them less. If a employee shoots someone, justified or not, the company faces lawsuit from the person shot or their family. It's cheaper to let their employees face death than risk having to pay out. Its all about money and their employees life isn't worth much to them. When courts or juries starts awarding defenseless employees judgments because their employer disarmed them and failed to provide protection, these policies might change. Far too many people get settlements or judgments when they were in the wrong. These companies have to weigh the cost. Sadly the good guys lose.
These no tolerance policies are bullshit. Autozone made a bad call here. The man thought his friend and fellow coworker was possibly going to be killed. He made the right choice. In the end, everyone lived and he lost his job. He's lucky. The next guy who comes across that robber may not be.
