Someone mentioned this in chat and I thought it happened today, but after looking up on Google, it seem that this specific event took place last month in Utah, but maybe they were then fired today.

The story goes, someone tried to steal a netbook and was confronted by an employee. The thief was taken to the back and joined by three other employees. When the suspect pulled out the netbook, he also pulled out a gun. These employees wrestled him to the floor and successfully pulled the gun away.

Walmart fired them for the act of bravery. Insane, eh?

Policy for the company states...


Walmart company policy states that employees are not to engage armed suspects and they were all subsequently fired.


...employees are allowed to use "reasonable force" to limit movements of struggling suspects. If a weapon comes out, however, associates must "disengage" and "withdraw," the policy states.

Last spring, an employee at a Walmart in Kansas was fired after being kicked and punched by a shoplifter. Not surprisingly, Walmart gave the exact same statement about that employee's dismissal.

I see another class action lawsuit against Walmart and hopefully this will spark outrages among the general public. More customers need to learn about this and stage a protest. My God, these customers will be giving praise to the workers!

SHAME ON YOU WALMART!

Wal-Mart isn't alone in this type of policy, there was a similar instance involving a Home Depot employee in the metro a while back and think they were fired too.

May want to check if Crest has a similar policy

In the overall scheme of things these policies make sense. But, when these individual incidents happen it does make it seem silly. I've worked at WalMart and 7-11 right out of or while in high school and was aware of these policies. They'd call a 'Code 500 to lawn and garden' and that meant a shoplifter was trying to get out the back door in the garden area. Loss prevention and any nearby male employee was asked to offer assistance, but we were not allowed to do much more than ask them to come back inside. In reality Walmart realizes a $300 Netbook is not worth even the possibility of someone being shot and I agree. Employees often take things like shoplifting way too personally and put themselves in unnecessary risk. But, letting them always get away without consequences is not the answer either.

At 7-11 we had shoplifters all the time. One cashier took off to get a guy who ran out with a 6pack of beer just to return and find out someone got into the register and also took a bunch of cigarettes while he was chasing down what amounted to nothing. We were told by corporate not to pursue any shoplifters because "its not your property, its ours and we don't need you going after it and endangering yourself or others." However, I do know a 7-11 manager that broke a guys rear windshield with a dog food can when he was doing a gas drive off.

A bigger concern is probably also an innocent customer getting hurt from a stray bullet etc. A guy running out of a WalMart with a NetBook isn't going to make the news, but a kid shot and killed when an overzealous employee wrestled with an armed shoplifter is. Not to mention the lawsuits.

Another thing we saw several times was staged accidents inside WalMart. A guy would come in an 'spill' a bottle of something slippery and leave. Two minutes later his buddy would walk in an slip and fall and sue.

We even had people that would intentionally act suspicious in hopes of being detained as they left and then would threaten to sue over the false allegation.

In one case a man sued because a security tag was stuck to the bottom of his shoe and it set off the alarms as he left the store. They kept looking in his stuff for the tag. Then when the security asked if he would check his pockets for 'anything you might have accidently put in them' he demanded police be called. The tag was found stuck to his shoe. Looking at the tapes it looks like he may have put it there on purpose. I'm told in the end they settled with him.

We'd get people who would place unpaid items in their sack and go to leave. They'd ask to see a receipt at the door and often the person would refuse. We were told we had to let them go and could not detain them for not showing a receipt if we didn't have absolute proof they had stolen. In recent years some people have really challenged this as many WalMarts across the country insist on seeing your receipt and apparently the law says different.

A bigger concern is probably also an innocent customer getting hurt from a stray bullet etc. ... a kid shot and killed when an overzealous employee wrestled with an armed shoplifter is. Not to mention the lawsuits. ....

This +20.

While I agree with the policy of let them run, if I find myself in a small room with a criminal and he pulls out a gun, I don't think I'm going to be inclined to trust his moral judgement as to use the gun or not. If the facts are as Thunder laid them out then I'm afraid, policy or not, I would have responded at least as vigorously as they did.

Faced with the potential loss of a job vs. the potential loss of life, most of us are more interested in our life than the job.

Faced with the potential loss of a job vs. the potential loss of life, most of us are more interested in our life than the job.

Especially a job at Walmart

Especially a job at Walmart
hah!

Actually, I'm a Wal Mart fan because I know a couple of people whose jobs at Wal Mart made the difference in their going to college and law school. For all the bad press, my friends found that management was wonderful about working with them and encouraging them.

When someone pulls a gun on you it stops being a "shopping lifting and I'm a dedicated employee" situtation and becomes a "I'm fighting for my life" situtation. I would sue Wal-mart for wrongful termination and tell them I could care less about the merchandise, I was trying to save my life. What kind of self-centered organization even thinks that people having a gun pointed at them gives a rats ass about some merchandise at that point.

According to my father-in-law who retired from K-Mart corporation, K-Mart tried this 'no resistance' policy back in the 80s and it almost put them out of business. They ended up paying more in insurance to cover theft loss and out of court settlements for slip and falls than if they started fighting them. Once word got out that you could just walk out of a K-Mart with anything you want in South Florida and the employees wouldn't stop you a lot of people started doing it. He told me he had to write a check one time for $50,000 to two teenagers who knocked a soda machine over on themselves while they were trying to break it open.

Faced with the potential loss of a job vs. the potential loss of life, most of us are more interested in our life than the job.

True, but more often than not, a shoplifter doesn't pull a weapon until confronted. That is why so many retailers have rules against anything other than a mild confrontation.

In the overall scheme of things these policies make sense. But, when these individual incidents happen it does make it seem silly. I've worked at WalMart and 7-11 right out of or while in high school and was aware of these policies. They'd call a 'Code 500 to lawn and garden' and that meant a shoplifter was trying to get out the back door in the garden area. Loss prevention and any nearby male employee was asked to offer assistance, but we were not allowed to do much more than ask them to come back inside. In reality Walmart realizes a $300 Netbook is not worth even the possibility of someone being shot and I agree. Employees often take things like shoplifting way too personally and put themselves in unnecessary risk. But, letting them always get away without consequences is not the answer either.

At 7-11 we had shoplifters all the time. One cashier took off to get a guy who ran out with a 6pack of beer just to return and find out someone got into the register and also took a bunch of cigarettes while he was chasing down what amounted to nothing. We were told by corporate not to pursue any shoplifters because "its not your property, its ours and we don't need you going after it and endangering yourself or others." However, I do know a 7-11 manager that broke a guys rear windshield with a dog food can when he was doing a gas drive off.

This sounds like the 7/11 at nw 32nd and classen.....bad bad area.

My mom works in a grocery store. A couple years back, she confronted a kid who she saw sticking candy in his coat pockets. The kid was only 10 years old, so she told him to give her the stuff and leave the store.

The next day, the kid's mom called the store manager and said that her son had been "threatened" by a clerk. My mom got suspended for 3 days because apparently it's against company policy for "non-security personnel" to confront shoplifters. Surveillance cameras showed that she didn't put her hands on the kid. If she had laid hands on him, she probably would have gotten fired.

People need to stop being so lawsuit-happy. If you get caught stealing, that is your problem. Suffer the consequences.

Obviously these Target employees didn't get the 'no physical contact' menu!

http://www.noob.us/miscellaneous/target-shoplifters-caught-on-tape/

Then there was this shoplifting story from OKC on TruTV. The guy who licensed this clip worked security for a grocery chain in OKC and used to have an entire channel on YouTube of shoplifters. It was funny stuff, but he took it down some time ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELFS0hoQLR4

True, but more often than not, a shoplifter doesn't pull a weapon until confronted. That is why so many retailers have rules against anything other than a mild confrontation.

Yes but most of the time they either do noting to let employees know, or do it in a web based program that really only trains you in the fastest way to get through that software.

In that first video, that guy talking on the phone was attacked by security. Nothing wrong with using the store phone... If he put something in his pocket before that, still no reason for excessive force. Lawsuit for Target to lose on that.

I would need more info about that situation to know who was at fault. I've let some kids go for bad situations similar to this, but it was their choices(in violation of policy that exists for a reason) that put them there.

I would need more info about that situation to know who was at fault. I've let some kids go for bad situations similar to this, but it was their choices(in violation of policy that exists for a reason) that put them there.

So it is how you thank your fired employees for them saving your precious business from merchandise theft and human life loss?

This policy is a dumb joke. Seriously, Walmart is gonna allow a bomber to walk into the store, shooting at customers, and blowing up the store all the while managers telling their employees, "Do not engage! We are counting on the customers to save our ass!"

Pretty much what the policy states. Customers are expected to remedy the situation while employees sit back and enjoy the show.

Any other made-up scenarios to throw out there? I'm not saying those guys should have been fired, just that there isn't enough info there to say.

In that first video, that guy talking on the phone was attacked by security. Nothing wrong with using the store phone... If he put something in his pocket before that, still no reason for excessive force. Lawsuit for Target to lose on that.

There's good chance that had nothing to do with Target or even shoplifting. They looked like police officers making an arrest for reasons unknown.
Most, if not all, of the other times it was the Loss Prevention Officer who mading contact with the customer/shoplifter.

Its a potential Pandora's Box retailers are dealing with. They don't want a butch of Rambos running around their stores falsely accusing customers or getting themselves in trouble.

There's good chance that had nothing to do with Target or even shoplifting. They looked like police officers making an arrest for reasons unknown.
Most, if not all, of the other times it was the Loss Prevention Officer who mading contact with the customer/shoplifter.

Its a potential Pandora's Box retailers are dealing with. They don't want a butch of Rambos running around their stores falsely accusing customers or getting themselves in trouble.


I'm pretty certain those were hired security guards. The uniforms did not look like police uniforms and they certainly didn't move like trained police officers. The Target I go to has security in dark uniforms to make them stand out. There is obviously additional information to this story..... or, those guys are the stereotypical over the top security guards. Personally, I think they either had good reason thank he was a dangerous person, or they were just too afraid of him to confront him without tackling him.

The only other thing could possibly be (but doubtful) they were bounty hunters and he was wanted.

So it is how you thank your fired employees for them saving your precious business from merchandise theft and human life loss?

This policy is a dumb joke. Seriously, Walmart is gonna allow a bomber to walk into the store, shooting at customers, and blowing up the store all the while managers telling their employees, "Do not engage! We are counting on the customers to save our ass!"

Pretty much what the policy states. Customers are expected to remedy the situation while employees sit back and enjoy the show.

Thunder, don't you work for Crest? What is their policy?

Police will tell you the same thing (officially) it is just not worth your life over a stolen purse or whatever. If the perp is armed, just lt it go...remove yourself from the potential of harm and do not engage/escalate the situation. Get all the info you can and let the pros handle it. Even then, they can be severely injured and they are the trained professions. Just this week, there was an off duty police officer that was severely injured when he tried to escort some unruly folks out of an establishment (at the request of the employees). Last I heard he may never walk again.

Thunder, don't you work for Crest? What is their policy?

Medical issues. I was offered a month leave, but I elected two weeks only to come back in time for December (first week is Food Stamp Users) and that it was a vital time for me to work for serious money (customers are so generous, God bless them). A few days after the New Year, I decided to leave for a while rather than asking for more time off. I'm still recovering, but did submit an application on impulse one day when taking mom to the store. The application was noted no rush...as soon a position becomes available. I'm sure they hired someone quickly after my departure.

Anyway, I was never made aware of such policy regarding this. I will be sure to check into that once I return (but may be trying to start my own small business soon...so we will see). We did have situations when people have stolen from the store (or at least when they have tried...strict security...eyes everywhere) and it was mostly a hush-hush. Police typically arrive very quickly.

One case that I remember was when a huge fight broke out in the parking lot. Several of the Sackers...employees...did surround the scene and tried to stop it. Those people fled before police arrived. Since then, none of them were fired for such involvement.

If someone were to rob the store at the customer service center and/or among the registers waving a gun, I would totally go after the gunman and try to take him down, even if I was to be shot, I would continue to fight. The way I see it, I have nothing to lose, except for the possibility of losing my life, but its the price I would be willing to pay for my coworkers and customers.

If someone were to rob the store at the customer service center and/or among the registers waving a gun, I would totally go after the gunman and try to take him down, even if I was to be shot, I would continue to fight. The way I see it, I have nothing to lose, except for the possibility of losing my life, but its the price I would be willing to pay for my coworkers and customers.

That all sounds well and good until it actually happens. My first experience with an armed robber was many years ago at the then Yucatan Liquor Stand on NW Expressway. I was on a first date (girl working the cologne counter at Sooner Mall - huge crush at the time) and gave up my parking spot to a car with two girls (trying to impress my date). As we walked past them we noticed they were being robbed by two men with guns. One of the women was shot in the head and killed right in front of us. Not even thinking I ran after them and chased them behind a vet building only to run into the rest of their gang in a running getaway car. The shooter stopped and pointed the gun right at my head from about 10' away. That was the scariest time in my life and very stupid thing for me to do. Why he didn't shoot me I'll never know. I later testified against him (Jerry Freeman (http://docapp065p.doc.state.ok.us/servlet/page?_pageid=394&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&doc_num=209828&offender_book_id=102088)) and he got life without parlor. That was before caller ID and when the local news released my name his little gangbanger buddies kept calling me with threats.

How long did you suffer from trauma, if any? Are they still threatening you?

How long did you suffer from trauma, if any? Are they still threatening you?

That night was pretty bad. Was in the back of the police car giving a description and account of what happened and he had to leave the back door open so I could throw up every now and then. As the shock wore off I could see and smell all the blood and bits and pieces all over me (I had returned and gave CPR to the victim until an ambulance arrived) and a large portion of her head was open and laid back. I had bad dreams for awhile but didn't really pay it much attention other than that. I had to move since my name and address was in the phone book at the time. The calls stopped when the trial was over. Needless to say that was my one and only date with my dream crush at the time. She had to call her parents to come get her in the middle of the night because the police kept me for several hours. My mom saw the live newscast and they showed a quick clip of me and she thought my date had been murdered.

As someone who has both been robbed and had my employees robbed i can promise that doing nothing IS the safest and most reasonable course of action in mkst cases.

According to my father-in-law who retired from K-Mart corporation, K-Mart tried this 'no resistance' policy back in the 80s and it almost put them out of business. They ended up paying more in insurance to cover theft loss and out of court settlements for slip and falls than if they started fighting them.

It was insurance that almost put K-Mart out of business in the 80s? Really? And you type inane crap in a thread with the name "Wal-Mart" in the title. Priceless.

What color is the sky in your world?

Swake2 - Initially K-Mart started making payment without question because it was cheaper than tyring to prosecute people or defend themeselves in court. They simply wrote the check and filed the insurance claim. As word got out in the criminal community about what a push-over Kmart was it attracted more and more of said activity. It didn't take long for K-marts insurance companies to wise up and start raising the premiums. K-Mart also started gaining a reputation for attracting that kind of element. It hurt K-Mart sales and reduced their ability to open new stores and ultimately put K-Mart in bankruptcy.

When we lived in Tampa the police implemented a no chase policy. The result was rampant crime increase with Hillsborough County becoming the number one car theft area in the country. The no chase policy last two years. If you don't punish crime you will get more of it. It is no harded than that. If Wal-Mart tells the criminal community that they in effect have their own 'no chase' policy, Wal-Mart will become scarier than it already is.

Recent story of apprehending shoplifter gone bad at a local Target.....

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-target-shoplift-stab-officer-story,0,931866.story