Tallahassee employee fired for stopping a gun thief

[ColaNoles]

Academy Sports manager fired weeks after intercepting gun thief suspect in Florida store, lawyer says


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/1...ief-suspect-in-florida-store-lawyer-says.html

 

[KitingHigh]

Such a shame. I'd stop shopping at Academy, but Imdont shop there as it is.

There's a thread about it on the main board. I really don't see how anyone can defend firing him give. The circumstances and the thiefs admissions.

 

[ericram]

So I read this in the Tallahassee Democrap. And for the fun of it I read the comments. Most comments were, I will boycott Academy Sport, how can they fire him, and that the stupidest thing ever, variety.

One did stand out. Stated, and I am paraphrasing, he was under investigation by the company for harassment, had fired several employees for similar reasons, and was an overall terrible person.

Always more to the story I guess.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Only thing company can do, really, given the policy. They don’t want employees getting hurt or killed, and they don’t want to get sued by a customer the employee roughs up during the stop. Or who claims racial profiling or some such.

 

[Nwnole87]

So I read this in the Tallahassee Democrap. And for the fun of it I read the comments. Most comments were, I will boycott Academy Sport, how can they fire him, and that the stupidest thing ever, variety.

One did stand out. Stated, and I am paraphrasing, he was under investigation by the company for harassment, had fired several employees for similar reasons, and was an overall terrible person.

Always more to the story I guess.

I don't think the two correlate. Quite simply a lot of companies have a no pursuit or interfere clause for management. If they wanted to fire him for harassment they should do it. If he violated their theft policies and they fire him they are justified. Although if someone is stealing a gun and ammo it would be worth my job to stop him, since I'd say he isn't going target practicing.

 

[ericram]

I don't think the two correlate. Quite simply a lot of companies have a no pursuit or interfere clause for management. If they wanted to fire him for harassment they should do it. If he violated their theft policies and they fire him they are justified. Although if someone is stealing a gun and ammo it would be worth my job to stop him, since I'd say he isn't going target practicing.

I believe he did the right thing. I also can see where this company might be taking a hard line on some bogus policy to rid themselves of a trouble maker.

 

[Nwnole87]

I believe he did the right thing. I also can see where this company might be taking a hard line on some bogus policy to rid themselves of a trouble maker.

Hope I don't contradict myself, but I could see that and agree. I just think they should hve the stones to do it if the other reason applies. But if your removing colon cancer you don't start in the shoulder. You go the quickest possible path right.

 

[West Duval Nole]

Anybody want a free gun or ammo? Just go to academy and walk out with it. Any employee tries to stop you physically. Remind them of their policy.

It honestly doesn't bother me if they have had that as their policy. As longlas they made sure all the employees are aware of it including the most likely scenario of it happening to prevent theft. And have consistently applied it across the board at all acadamies.

Like someone else said above, i probably would still have just got fired. This took a few guns off the streets, that I am guessing would have been used for additional crimes. Perhaps he should go work at the pawn shop that was stolen from. I bet they wish one of their employees stopped this guy from stealing a gun from them.

 

[LesClaypool]

But if your removing colon cancer you don't start in the shoulder. You go the quickest possible path right.

Did you come up with this? If so, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[JohnnieHolmesNole]

Only thing company can do, really, given the policy. They don’t want employees getting hurt or killed, and they don’t want to get sued by a customer the employee roughs up during the stop. Or who claims racial profiling or some such.

Almost feel sorry for Academy. The “policy” was instituted to minimize the chances of lawsuits by John Morgan and other bounty hunters of his ilk. So then the company enforces the policy — as it must, if it is going to have a policy — and it is subjected to great public scorn. The joke will be complete when Morgan or another hack soon surfaces to sue Academy for enforcing its policy. Even if the case is a loser, which it is, it will generate lots of free publicity for the ambulance chaser.

And then Morgan gets on TV (every 90 seconds) and tells us that all of his cru$ade$ are “for the people.” Laughable.

 

[KitingHigh]

Almost feel sorry for Academy. The “policy” was instituted to minimize the chances of lawsuits by John Morgan and other bounty hunters of his ilk. So then the company enforces the policy — as it must, if it is going to have a policy — and it is subjected to great public scorn. The joke will be complete when Morgan or another hack soon surfaces to sue Academy for enforcing its policy. Even if the case is a loser, which it is, it will generate lots of free publicity for the ambulance chaser.

And then Morgan gets on TV (every 90 seconds) and tells us that all of his cru$ade$ are “for the people.” Laughable.

It's their policy, do they do in fact have a choice. I agree about the lawyers, but in this case I don't think they'd have to seriously worry. Stopping a potential shooting should trump a policy to prevent injuries over a tennis racket.

It's not like everyone gets fired over these types of policies anyway. Just because an action is a cause for termination doesn't mean everyone is terminated for that action.

 

[dero316]

Anybody want a free gun or ammo? Just go to academy and walk out with it. Any employee tries to stop you physically. Remind them of their policy.

 

[helmetnuts]

It is a lot of box store's policy. When I retired from the Navy in 2009 and was going back to college to get my degree I decided to see if I could find some part-time work to support my poker habit. Ended up working for about 3 weeks at Lowes (that's another story)...we were trained to do the exact same thing though...literally would have guys walk in, load up multiple chainsaws, generators, paint sprayers etc and just walk out.

 

[West Duval Nole]

Just because an action is a cause for termination doesn't mean everyone is terminated for that action.

Well then. That is a problem. If they are going to have a policy, they need to apply it consistently and not just pick and choose when to apply it. Especially in this case. So fire this guy for physically stopping a gun thief but not some other employee who physically stopped someone stealing a bat or tennis racket or clothing. They would be walking a slippery slope on whether that really is a policy and would be opening up themselves for lawsuits, especially if when applied it appears to say impact a specific gender or race, etc.

 

[seminole97]

we were trained to do the exact same thing though...literally would have guys walk in, load up multiple chainsaws, generators, paint sprayers etc and just walk out.

And then what?
Asking for a friend...

 

[kc78]

Thanks to Insurance and Lawyers almost every company has a policy that you never chase down a robbery suspect for any reason due to the chance of you getting injured, a customer getting injured, or the suspect getting injured. As a result they put in policies that says, under no circumstances do you ever touch a customer, even if they're breaking the law. You call the police and let them handle it. If you do, you lose your job.

Now that's a decision you have to make in the moment. Is it the right thing to give up your job and stop someone from stealing from the company (In this case a gun) because you think they'll use that weapon to harm someone. I think in this case you have to, but from an insurance perspective the company has to follow the policy or the insurance company says we won't cover you anymore.

 

[Scalphunter]

Just imagine they let the guy walk out the door with the stolen firearm because of their policy. He goes into the parking lot and loads the magazine he had just stolen, with the ammunition he had just stolen, into the firearm he had just stolen, and returns into the store and kills customers and employees. You want to talk about multi-million dollar Morgan & Morgan lawsuits. Any policy that clearly is counter-intuitive to the life and limb of customers and employees needs to be changed.

 

[SoddyNole]

Has any other local sports or fire arms stores hired him? Sounds like a great opportunity for some free publicity to come out and meet the local hero. Given a little motivation gun owners tend to spend a lot money when inspired.

 

[Buddy Green]

He's a manager and undoubtedly knew what the policy was. Any retail management position requires training and the completion of workbooks which go over all store policies. I understand why he did what he did, but there's no way to have a policy that "excludes" theft of certain items.

The sad part is that he went and got an attorney and ran to the media in hopes they could bully AS into giving him his job back(wont happen). He'll have a hard time getting another job at a similar type place given the reason he was terminated - which is probably why he got the attorney. This will blow over, a new faux outrage event will occur and nobody will remember this.

 

[KitingHigh]

Just imagine they let the guy walk out the door with the stolen firearm because of their policy. He goes into the parking lot and loads the magazine he had just stolen, with the ammunition he had just stolen, into the firearm he had just stolen, and returns into the store and kills customers and employees. You want to talk about multi-million dollar Morgan & Morgan lawsuits. Any policy that clearly is counter-intuitive to the life and limb of customers and employees needs to be changed.

Amen.

Everyone would be livid that nothing was done to prevent the tragedy. I doubt anyone would be defending the policy in that very realistic case.

What if he went home and killed his wife or girlfriend? The lawsuit would be much larger and more valid IMO. The manager would get on the stand and say "I wanted to stop him, but company policy prevented me from doing so." Academy would be out of business the day after the trial.

 

[KitingHigh]

Well then. That is a problem. If they are going to have a policy, they need to apply it consistently and not just pick and choose when to apply it. Especially in this case. So fire this guy for physically stopping a gun thief but not some other employee who physically stopped someone stealing a bat or tennis racket or clothing. They would be walking a slippery slope on whether that really is a policy and would be opening up themselves for lawsuits, especially if when applied it appears to say impact a specific gender or race, etc.

Not allowing a bit of discretion is a much larger problem.

I find it funny that people are concerned about machines becoming more human via AI, but don't seem to be concerned at all that we seem to want humans to be machines simply following protocol regardless of the situation and circumstances.

 

[runkpanole]

This seems like another classic example of zero tolerance policies run amok. I saw one comment comparing Academy's policy to a similar policy Whataburger has. The difference the person making the comment didn't realize was, stealing a burger and fries isn't going to get someone killed, stealing a glock and ammunition, very likely could.

 

[DFSNOLE]

Just imagine they let the guy walk out the door with the stolen firearm because of their policy. He goes into the parking lot and loads the magazine he had just stolen, with the ammunition he had just stolen, into the firearm he had just stolen, and returns into the store and kills customers and employees. You want to talk about multi-million dollar Morgan & Morgan lawsuits. Any policy that clearly is counter-intuitive to the life and limb of customers and employees needs to be changed.

What if he did the same thing with a baseball bat or anything else that can be weaponized?

 

[Scalphunter]

I wonder if Academy Sports has a policy about intervening when a customer or employee is being actively assaulted within the store or their property. Maybe a customer picks up a baseball bat and starts wacking people or picks up a machete. Theiolicy states you stand and watch and call the cops since you can't touch someone. Morgan & Morgan comes calling again!

What if he did the same thing with a baseball bat or anything else that can be weaponized?

The main difference is that handguns are pretty universally known to be used for deadly force, and extremely fast & efficient use of deadly force at that. Baseball bats, knives, large wrenches, lamps, bowling balls have other primary purposes. I could kill you with the metal pen I write with very easily. Definitely not as efficient, and you could more easily defend yourself against my pen attack than you could against my .40 cal Glock. So, I don't think you could make that logical leap in comparing various "potential" weapons.

 

[West Duval Nole]

Not allowing a bit of discretion is a much larger problem.

I find it funny that people are concerned about machines becoming more human via AI, but don't seem to be concerned at all that we seem to want humans to be machines simply following protocol regardless of the situation and circumstances.

I don't have a problem with discretion being used. However, if the true point of the policy is to prevent liability and lawsuits then well applying discretion doesn't really prevent it. Additionally it seems that the discretion to use it here but say they didn't for other less deadly merchandise being stolen would seem like very poor discretion.

 

[kc78]

IMO, the better solution is that we change laws on selling firearms that doesn't allow a customer access to a firearm in a manner that they can simply walk out with it before having a background check and purchasing it.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

IMO, the better solution is that we change laws on selling firearms that doesn't allow a customer access to a firearm in a manner that they can simply walk out with it before having a background check and purchasing it.

You would buy a gun without being able to hold it first?

 

[Buddy Green]

IMO, the better solution is that we change laws on selling firearms that doesn't allow a customer access to a firearm in a manner that they can simply walk out with it before having a background check and purchasing it.

And how would a sporting goods store do that? You have to let someone handle the firearm before they purchase the gun. You can't make them pay for a background check to see a gun. And the store can't lock its doors like a pawn shop.

Events like this(snatch&grab a gun) happen from time to time, but they are rare and don't make the news because they usually happen at gun store or pawn shops. Given the sentence one would be looking at for stealing a gun, and considering there are other sources for felons to get guns other than being on camera grabbing one at the local Big Box, this isn't something we as a nation should change our gun laws over because its much ado about nothing. One guy lost his job for violating company policy. This has little to actually do with guns or gun laws.

 

[seminole97]

What if he went home and killed his wife or girlfriend? The lawsuit would be much larger and more valid IMO. The manager would get on the stand and say "I wanted to stop him, but company policy prevented me from doing so." Academy would be out of business the day after the trial.

Citizen A witnesses citizen B commit a crime and suddenly they're responsible for whatever subsequent crimes B commits?
Nah...

Manager got caught wind of all the BATF paperwork in his future and acted fast.

 

[BloodyNoseJose]

Has any other local sports or fire arms stores hired him? Sounds like a great opportunity for some free publicity to come out and meet the local hero. Given a little motivation gun owners tend to spend a lot money when inspired.

Madison Social offered him a job.

 

[ericram]

Madison Social offered him a job.

He is likely going to wait for his big(ish) settlement from Academy.

 

[Scalphunter]

Academy Sports rehires Dean Crouch after backlash

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/n...ean-crouch-after-national-brouhaha/782368002/

 

[ericram]

Academy Sports rehires Dean Crouch after backlash

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/n...ean-crouch-after-national-brouhaha/782368002/

Wow, that is interesting for all parties. Can't talk about it anymore and Academy avoids a settlement.

 

[LesClaypool]

Wow, that is interesting for all parties. Can't talk about it anymore and Academy avoids a settlement.

Or GOT a settlement AND can't talk about it.

 

[ericram]

Or GOT a settlement AND can't talk about it.

True on your point as well. Crisis management on the part of Academy did it's job very well here.

 

[DFSNOLE]

Or GOT a settlement AND can't talk about it.

I don't know how he would be due a settlement if he was fired for cause.

 

[ericram]

I don't know how he would be due a settlement if he was fired for cause.

Was thinking he probably got some cash to keep his mouth shut based on the lawyer's comments.

 

[gcnole]

With how sue happy America is, I cannot blame corporations for having this policy in place. When i worked at Publix they had the same policy. If that robber would have gotten hurt, he probably would have sued in won. A jury would have awarded him millions of dollars. We have a local restaurant here in Tampa that just got sued because a customer got food poisoning from eating raw oysters. Not only did they get sued but a jury awarded the man 6.2 million dollars! It's a crazy country we live in.

 

[DFSNOLE]

Was thinking he probably got some cash to keep his mouth shut based on the lawyer's comments.

I doubt I'm the first one to tell you this but lawyers lie. A lot.

 

[KitingHigh]

I don't have a problem with discretion being used. However, if the true point of the policy is to prevent liability and lawsuits then well applying discretion doesn't really prevent it. Additionally it seems that the discretion to use it here but say they didn't for other less deadly merchandise being stolen would seem like very poor discretion.

You really you really didn't think this through or proofread it did you?

You literally just posted you don't mind discretion unless someone actually uses it.

And in his case, better late than never. Hopefully the dumb piece of crap that fired him has lost his or her job permanently, but the good guy was rehired. And everyone who defended the "policy" should be ashamed of themselves.