elcaminoariba
member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 149
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=14319284
Rushing a guy with a gun is never a good idea. I had the same knee jerk reaction as everyone else in the poll, and was outraged at wal mart, but these employees almost got their fellow employee killed. Perps tend to keep fingers on triggers, so spinning a perp around who is pointing a gun at your buddy's back is BAD BAD BAD. I can't believe I agree with wal mart on this one. The perp just wanted to leave and these guys and gal turned themselves into wannabe cops. That being said, I wouldn't have fired them if I were in charge because I believe in rewarding success, and they were successful. I would however, have given them a long lecture on the realities of firearms and what can happen when you rush an armed individual who is pointing his gun directly at someone's back. They acted proactively like we see in the movies, and they got lucky that no one was hurt. I would have just let the guy go. The perp had the upper hand and these employees took one hell of a dangerous gamble (a gamble with their fellow employee's life) to attempt to retake the upper hand, which worked THIS time, but I can't blame wal mart for not wanting their employees to gamble with each other's lives to retake the upper hand from a guy with a weapon. The employee who had the gun to his back needs to sue for wrongful termination though. He was taken hostage, so by definition, he "disengaged" as per wal mart policy, and the perp had been disarmed by OTHERS. I don't know what wal mart expected this particular employee to do, give the guy his gun back?
Rushing a guy with a gun is never a good idea. I had the same knee jerk reaction as everyone else in the poll, and was outraged at wal mart, but these employees almost got their fellow employee killed. Perps tend to keep fingers on triggers, so spinning a perp around who is pointing a gun at your buddy's back is BAD BAD BAD. I can't believe I agree with wal mart on this one. The perp just wanted to leave and these guys and gal turned themselves into wannabe cops. That being said, I wouldn't have fired them if I were in charge because I believe in rewarding success, and they were successful. I would however, have given them a long lecture on the realities of firearms and what can happen when you rush an armed individual who is pointing his gun directly at someone's back. They acted proactively like we see in the movies, and they got lucky that no one was hurt. I would have just let the guy go. The perp had the upper hand and these employees took one hell of a dangerous gamble (a gamble with their fellow employee's life) to attempt to retake the upper hand, which worked THIS time, but I can't blame wal mart for not wanting their employees to gamble with each other's lives to retake the upper hand from a guy with a weapon. The employee who had the gun to his back needs to sue for wrongful termination though. He was taken hostage, so by definition, he "disengaged" as per wal mart policy, and the perp had been disarmed by OTHERS. I don't know what wal mart expected this particular employee to do, give the guy his gun back?
Last edited: