From the files of brilliant management decisions.... - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #1 02-19-2011, 09:35 PM

Walmart ......\

Wal-Mart Security Employees Fired for Disarming Store Gunman
Feb 15, 2011 – 11:44 AM

Four Wal-Mart employees have been fired after management said they violated company policy by disarming an alleged shoplifter who had pulled a gun inside the store.

Lori Poulsen, Justin Richins, Shawn Ray and Gabriel Stewart were all longtime workers at Wal-Mart's Layton, Utah, store. Poulsen was an asset protection coordinator, Richins and Ray were asset protection associates, and Stewart was an assistant manager.

On Jan. 13, employees allegedly witnessed a man identified as Trent Allen Longton take a netbook computer out of the package and stuff it under his shirt. When Longton attempted to leave the store, he was confronted by Poulsen, who escorted him to a nearby office. The two were joined there by Ray, Richins and Stewart, Salt Lake City's Deseret News reported.

Inside the office, Longton allegedly pulled out a loaded handgun and ran toward the office door, which was blocked by Ray, Richins and Stewart. Longton then allegedly grabbed Stewart and shoved the gun into his back. Concerned for their safety, the workers reacted forcefully and disarmed Longton.

In the police incident report, the investigating officer noted that the Wal-Mart employees acted in the "best interest and safety" of those around them. Longton, as it turned out, was a convicted felon who was prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Wal-Mart managers, however, disagreed. The following week, the four workers were fired for violating the company's "Investigation and Detention of Shoplifters Policy." The policy instructs employees to retreat if an individual brandishes a weapon.

"If during an approach or investigation, it becomes apparent that the suspect has a weapon or brandishes or threatens use of a weapon; all associates must disengage from the situation, withdraw to a safe position, and contact law enforcement," reads a copy of the policy available online. "If at any point the suspect or any other involved person becomes violent, disengage from the confrontation, withdraw to a safe position and contact law enforcement."

The next paragraph instructs employees to "put people first," stating that protecting the physical well-being of "suspects, customers and Wal-Mart associates is your first priority."

Speaking with the Deseret News last week, the dismissed employees said they had nowhere to go and were forced to subdue the suspect when he charged them. They also said they were not comfortable allowing an armed man into the store area where shoppers could be at risk.

Wal-Mart did not immediately respond to a request for comment today from AOL News.

In a previously released statement obtained by The Deseret News, managers defended their actions, saying the four put their safety "and potentially the safety of our customers and other associates in jeopardy."

Stewart, who had been with Wal-Mart for 12 years, told the newspaper he is still trying to understand the company's decision.

"I honestly felt worse than when I had the gun to my back,"

Chas H · #2 02-19-2011, 09:56 PM

Make a pact with the devil--

catmandoo62 · #3 02-19-2011, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Walmart ......\

The next paragraph instructs employees to "put people first," stating that protecting the physical well-being of "suspects, customers and Wal-Mart associates is your first priority."

"

you have got to be kidding me."protecting the well being of SUSPECTS,when they are coming at you with a gun.if they pulled the gun more then likely they intend to use it,so your supposed to roll over and get shot for the well being of the criminal.screw wal-mart.

Chas H · #4 02-19-2011, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catmandoo62

you have got to be kidding me."protecting the well being of SUSPECTS,when they are coming at you with a gun.if they pulled the gun more then likely they intend to use it,so your supposed to roll over and get shot for the well being of the criminal.screw wal-mart.

Employees agreed to the rules of employment when they were hired. It's kinda late now to question those rules.

Jim B. · #5 02-20-2011, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catmandoo62

you have got to be kidding me."protecting the well being of SUSPECTS,when they are coming at you with a gun.if they pulled the gun more then likely they intend to use it,so your supposed to roll over and get shot for the well being of the criminal.screw wal-mart.

“There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America.”
Otto von Bismarck

raymr · #6 02-20-2011, 12:42 AM

Its like the government. A think-tank makes up rules and the workers mindlessly follow them. A bad rule doesn't go back to the think-tank until enough bad things happen to warrant it.

retmil46 · #7 02-20-2011, 01:22 AM

Reading thru those "rules of engagement", it sounds as if Wal-Mart is literally begging for shoplifters to rob them blind. "Rolling Back Prices" indeed - hard to beat that five finger discount.

Wouldn't surprise me if the corporate level actually WANTED a certain amount of theft and shoplifting - makes for a nifty business expense to write off against taxes.

With a shoplifting policy like this, why the hell even bother hiring "asset protection associates" (ie, the most politically correct term I've ever heard for a store security guard)? All a perp has to do is become "violent" - ie, take a roundhouse swing at one of the "associates" - and they're supposed to let him go on his merry way.

Perhaps I answered my own question - this sounds like political correctness carried to the level of abject stupidity.

These guys were damned if they did and damned if they didn't - I'd wager they'd have lost their jobs anyway, as corporate scapegoats for the bad PR of simply having an armed perp inside the store, even if they'd let him go and no one had gotten hurt.

mgburg · #8 02-20-2011, 04:45 AM

I'm wondering if the nutball just pulled the pistol out of his pants and, instead of rushing the 4, he just decided to empty his clip into them...what would the Mal*Fart braintrust do then?

4 dead, non-participatory asset-guardians, 1 extremely agitated numbnutz running around the store's interior where children and mothers are just begging to be shot (YOU WERE THINKING IT!!! I KNOW YOU WERE!!!!! DON'T SAY YOU WEREN'T!!!!) and what do you have?

An awards presentation for the 4 dead assest-protectors and who-know-how-many-dead-customers?

Nope.

One hell of a PR Nightmare that will be remembered for eons.

Yep, Mal*Fart is inspiring me to make sure I have a DNR order in my Retirement Package...just in case I, somehow, do manage to live long enough that I find myself having to fill out one of their job applications. May I die from an infected pencil splinter before I ever put on a Mal*Fart smock.

Ara T. · #9 02-20-2011, 06:25 AM

Those guys are pretty 'tarded for risking their lives over Walmart's laptop

t walgamuth · #10 02-20-2011, 10:11 AM

This is not about political correctness. This is about a company making a decision that they don't want guns going off in their store. Wrestling with a person who has a gun could result in innocent bystanders getting injured. It appears to me to be a business decision pure and simple.

Once that decision is made you have no choice but to fire people who break an important rule such as this if you have any hope of enforcing the rule with your other employees.

Don't worry about the fellows who got fired, someone will want them to work at their place.

sfloriII · #11 02-20-2011, 10:11 AM

I hope airlines don't have a similar policy when it comes to would-be terrorists with a gun on a plane!

catmandoo62 · #12 02-20-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

This is not about political correctness. This is about a company making a decision that they don't want guns going off in their store. Wrestling with a person who has a gun could result in innocent bystanders getting injured. It appears to me to be a business decision pure and simple.

until they were in the "office" they had no idea he had a gun.at which point it was either let him walk out in the store with his gun where he could go on a shooting spree or take him down to protect the well being of the customers.i'll agree with "ret" they were damned if they did damned if they didn't.

lutzTD · #13 02-20-2011, 10:51 AM

What if..... they failed to subdue since they are not trianed, the pissed guy now with elevated survival instinct kicked in is now loose in the store where every blue shirt is a threat. This was a correct firing and a message to the rest they are not professional enforcement. They were lucky all they lost was a job

retmil46 · #14 02-20-2011, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

This is not about political correctness. This is about a company making a decision that they don't want guns going off in their store. Wrestling with a person who has a gun could result in innocent bystanders getting injured. It appears to me to be a business decision pure and simple.

Once that decision is made you have no choice but to fire people who break an important rule such as this if you have any hope of enforcing the rule with your other employees.

Don't worry about the fellows who got fired, someone will want them to work at their place.

I'm sure the gent who ended up with the loaded gun shoved in his back would beg to differ with you. I suppose he should have just allowed the perp to shoot him - he may have been dead, but at least he wouldn't have violated company policy.

From the sound of it, the whole incident, from the time of the gun being drawn, took place in a matter of seconds. They had the perp away from the store proper in an office with the door closed - ie, away from innocent bystanders - when he pulls a gun and charges at the three men standing in front of the closed door - the only way out, and nowhere for the three gents to back away from the perp IAW company policy - and essentially tries to take one of them hostage, shoving a loaded gun in his back.

At that point, I'd imagine the three security guards didn't give a damn about company policy - the only thing on their minds was to still be alive and breathing the next morning - and took action to protect their OWN lives out of instinct in the seconds they had to react.

What would have potentially happened if this nut had been allowed to go running thru the store with a loaded gun, probably didn't even occur to them until well after all was said and done, and everyone concerned had time to put on a clean pair of underwear.

This doesn't sound like a sound business decision - sound business decisions to keep your company in existence and profitable are based on taking into account changing conditions and circumstances - this simply looks to be some CANT (Corporate Animal No Talent) at the home office enforcing rote policy.

HuskyMan · #15 02-20-2011, 11:35 AM

When something like this happens, you don't have time to consult the employee handbook to see if you should or should not take action. Time is a factor.