Gas Station Employee Fired For Fighting Off Robber

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1535827' date='May 21 2008, 01:27 AM']maybe he could've gotten one of the disposable cameras from the shelves and developed a couple of pictures first? . Yes if he knew the woman was safe then he should probably stay back. If someone has even a slight feeling someone is being attacked, then the right thing to do is help, not analyze the situation until its too late.[/quote]


Even if it means exacerbating a non-violent situation and getting someone killed? Great.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Excelsior1027' post='1535826' date='May 21 2008, 01:26 AM']Yes, the woman was not being attacked. However, the man thought she was;[/quote]

And he was wrong. And someone could have gotten killed. For $15. When no one was under attack. Great.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1535822' date='May 21 2008, 01:17 AM']Maybe the woman in this case wasn't being physically attacked, but the man said from his view it looked like she was, and that is reason enough I think to take action.[/quote]

Even if it meant one or more people got killed in the process. GREAT! That's smart thinking.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1535745' date='May 20 2008, 11:52 PM']And I remember a certain Somebody who broke the rules by curing on a Sabbath. Certain laws are unjust.[/quote]

Completely and totally 100% unrelated.

And it wasn't a *law*. It was a company policy that the guy SIGNED his name to and agreed to be in compliance of. The woman was not under attack. The employee rushed the robber from a bad angle where he didn't have a proper view to the situation and didn't try to take a moment to assess the situation properly before rushing in. He didn't even try to pick up an object to use as a weapon. He just rushed the guy on sight. Someone could have been killed. It was an extremely rash and irresponsible thing he did and I can't believe some of you are defending this in the name of "chivalry". Ridiculous. This is not an example of chivalry. It's an example of stupidity.

[Justin86]

I'm curious to hear what the girl has to say before I make my final decision on the matter. Being that I do not know this girl, and it is therefore unlikely I will ever find out her opinion I suppose that makes me indecisive on the issue.

"I'm not indescisive. Am I indecisive?"
--George H. Bush

[Totus Tuus]

[quote]Marathon Petroleum Company, the owner of the SuperAmerica chain, said Beverly was told what to do in the company handbook — which advises employees to "cooperate: don't argue, resist or attack the robber" — and through a computer-based training program Beverly was required to complete when he was hired.[/quote]

So, you're supposed to cooperate with the guy attacking/raping your female co-worker? I would have been shocked if a male coworker of mine "cooperated" and "didn't argue" while I was being attacked.

[Deb]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1535907' date='May 21 2008, 07:49 AM']Completely and totally 100% unrelated.

And it wasn't a *law*. It was a company policy that the guy SIGNED his name to and agreed to be in compliance of. The woman was not under attack. The employee rushed the robber from a bad angle where he didn't have a proper view to the situation and didn't try to take a moment to assess the situation properly before rushing in. He didn't even try to pick up an object to use as a weapon. He just rushed the guy on sight. Someone could have been killed. It was an extremely rash and irresponsible thing he did and I can't believe some of you are defending this in the name of "chivalry". Ridiculous. This is not an example of chivalry. It's an example of stupidity.[/quote]



Where does it say he signed his name to anything? It said he read it on a computer based training a year ago. Probably something no one would have even remembered if you know anything about computer based training.

Really, it isn't "some" of us are defending him, it is pretty much all of us. Again. Per usual. No surprises here.
You relate someone trying to save someone as stupid. I pray you aren't the person I would have to rely on.

[StColette]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1535820' date='May 21 2008, 02:13 AM']dang, where do you work? [/quote]

I worked for Radioshack for 2 1/2 years. People get a little crazy over their electronics.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1535904' date='May 21 2008, 06:41 AM']And he was wrong. And someone could have gotten killed. For $15. When no one was under attack. Great.[/quote]
And if the robber planned to shoot the clerk after taking the money?

Someone [b]could [/b]have gotten hurt because he intervened. Someone [b]could [/b]have gotten hurt if he didn't. Did anyone get hurt because he intervened? Doesn't appear so.

From his angle, it appeared the clerk was being physically assaulted. He acted in the heat of the moment with what he thought to be precious time. Did he do the right thing? I believe so.
Does he deserved to be fired? Yes. He was trained to not react and knew company policy. They will probably suffer a bit of bad PR, but they'll have to deal with it.
Should the gas station review their policy on this? I'd think so, but I'm not a businessman or lawyer, so I don't know the legal ramifications for such policies.

Edited May 21, 2008 by CatholicCid

[Deb]

The best part is that now SA has put it out all over the nation that their employees are told to not do anything if they are being robbed, if an employee is being attacked, beat up or whatever cuz they might get fired.
Like taking out an ad...."Hey all bad dudes, come rob our stores. We are easy access. No guns, no glory, no guts."

The new girly man America.

[CatherineM]

They won't review their policies because they were already written by the lawyers. It protects them in case some one gets killed fighting back. Some banks have told their employees not to slip in dye packs in case they go off before the robber gets out of the bank, and they start shooting.