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,"

Make a pact with the devil--

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.

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

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

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.

__________________
Just say "NO" to Ethanol - Drive Diesel

Mitchell Oates
Mooresville, NC
'87 300D 212K miles
'87 300D 151K miles - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD 67K miles
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club

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.

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

Under what circumstances? How would I write off an item and make more money than by selling it? Now if you are talking about a trailer full of unsellable items, I'd rather have you steal it and claim insurance or write it off since it isn't moving anyways. But if an item isn't moving, who'd want to steal it?

Could be that they don't want to have the liability of having to answer a lawsuit when the perp comes back and says "Sure, I stole but you broke my back and now I am confined to a wheelchair. Why can't we all get along?".

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

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.

__________________
1985 380SE Blue/Blue - 230,000 miles
2012 Subaru Forester 5-speed
2005 Toyota Sienna
2004 Chrysler Sebring convertible
1999 Toyota Tacoma

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

__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi

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.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

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.

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.

__________________
Just say "NO" to Ethanol - Drive Diesel

Mitchell Oates
Mooresville, NC
'87 300D 212K miles
'87 300D 151K miles - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD 67K miles
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club

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.

“…so no one will be able to sue us”

As noted, company policy was violated and the employees terminated accordingly.
Correct – this is another non-issue. Wal*Mart has no desire to be tied up in multiple wrongful death lawsuits and other related litigation.