The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 51    Average: 3.8/5]
61 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 26650
Rating: 3.8
Date: 02/16/11 10:20 AM

61 Responses to Walmart Employees Fired For Disarming Thief[FIXED]

  1. Profile photo of eugenius
    eugenius Male 30-39
    1620 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 10:25 am
    Link: Walmart Employees Fired For Disarming Thief - And they were SECURITY employees! They were doing their job, Walmart--and you fired them. You suck.
  2. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 10:31 am
    I had a friend that got fired from Domino`s for macing a robber. true story.
  3. Profile photo of rammo34
    rammo34 Male 18-29
    1083 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 10:36 am
    It`s not loading for me.
  4. Profile photo of Freik
    Freik Male 18-29
    67 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 10:39 am
    Fixed Link
  5. Profile photo of untiedshoes6
    untiedshoes6 Female 18-29
    57 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 10:54 am
    It`s the curse of retail I`m afraid. If you don`t do anything and let the man go, you can be fired and even suspected of conspiring by the police. If you fight back to protect yourself, get back the merchandise and keep anyone else from being`re screwed like these 4 guys. Yet another reason why I am glad I left the hell-hole that is retail.
  6. Profile photo of ihurtmyself
    ihurtmyself Male 30-39
    361 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 10:59 am
    retard rent-a-pigs. walmart does not need security; that`s what cameras and real pigs are for. i`m glad they got fired. they put a LOT of people in danger by pretending they impact the loss prevention program walmart has there.
    (obiously too stupid and too butch to be real fascists)
  7. Profile photo of WeePee
    WeePee Male 18-29
    612 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 11:00 am
    they probably got fired for not following correct protocol.
  8. Profile photo of LandoGriffin
    LandoGriffin Male 30-39
    3844 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 11:11 am
    It is probably clearly spelled out in their employee manual: Do not engage in physical altercation with armed suspects. It is likely to increase the danger of a violent incident. Where I work, they are very clear: DO NOT physically confront an armed troublemaker. Do not argue with them. Do not provoke them. Call the real police and be patient.
  9. Profile photo of meepmaker
    meepmaker Male 30-39
    6694 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 11:13 am
    Well I guess they should have done nothing like always and just kept their jobs.
  10. Profile photo of Monosandalos
    Monosandalos Male 30-39
    287 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 11:17 am
    @ihurtmyself: While I agree with the principle of not putting people in danger, I gather from the video that this happened in the security room. When confronted by someone with a weapon in a confined space, I don`t know to what extent following policy can be applied over the instinct of survival.
    If this had happened in the main area outside I would be in complete agreement with you.
  11. Profile photo of tn11
    tn11 Male 18-29
    1587 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 11:19 am
    Eh. Policy makes sense, but you have to know there are situations that require exceptions, or at least further study.
  12. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18927 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 11:20 am
    Sorry about the pre-roll commercial, guys.

    I found a CNN video without ads, but I guess it wasn`t working for everyone.
  13. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 11:31 am
    process is process i guess
  14. Profile photo of akrominii
    akrominii Male 18-29
    51 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 11:38 am
    Damnit, thanks for letting everyone know "the policy." Now I don`t know if I want to go to Wal-Mart for awhile.
  15. Profile photo of AlfishKK
    AlfishKK Female 18-29
    782 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 12:12 pm
    Yeah, the policy is not to mess with people with guns. However, there`s no guarantee that an armed person who goes unchallenged won`t hurt someone.

    I think they handled it well--they caught the man and no one was hurt.
  16. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 12:24 pm
    Unfortunately another instance where common sense has vacated the premises. No rule can cover every situation encountered, You don`t fire great employees like this. Come on Walmart, Pull the stick out of your ass and re-hire them.
  17. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 12:25 pm
    That`s messed up.
  18. Profile photo of duffytoler
    duffytoler Male 40-49
    5195 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 12:36 pm
    00:22 - dat AZZZZZ! Wait... what was the video about?
  19. Profile photo of murph89
    murph89 Male 18-29
    84 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 12:40 pm
    Many stores have a policy that if you see a shoplifter you just call police and you don`t confront them yourself. That way, you avoid these situations altogether. So, if that is Walmart policy, they should be fired. If policy is to confront shoplifters, these people did the right thing and they should keep their jobs.

    From the company`s standpoint, the items being stolen don`t cost much, and may even be covered by insurance, and therefore are not worth risking your life over. Or, you could go with the money argument that it`s cheaper to cover a stolen laptop than a hospital bill for an employee who gets shot.
  20. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 12:42 pm
    The policy makes sense, the end result doesn`t. Time to rethink the way you do things Wallmart.

    And the sensationalist nature of the media doesn`t help either, but you kinda expect that from news stories from the states these days.
  21. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    So, if a person pulls out a weapon, walmart SECURITY, let me stress that more, ~SECURITY~ is supposed to throw their hands up and surrender. My definition of security must be wrong.
  22. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    "The policy makes sense"

    Fack you, no it doesnt.
  23. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    The fact that Wal-Mart fired them without a verbal and written warning is too extreme. Freak the EVIL EMPIRE. They are EVIL beyond extremes. Sue their Ass! I will dance an Irish Jig the day they ever collapse and the Walton family will burn in hell forever.
  24. Profile photo of itellifyou
    itellifyou Male 18-29
    161 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 1:23 pm
    Lando and ihurtmyself, you obviously have never had any experience in a situation where you and others are in clear and immanent danger. The guy was unstable and unpredictable, they did what they had to do to be safe.
  25. Profile photo of Rick_S
    Rick_S Male 40-49
    3290 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 1:35 pm
    I`m torn here. They knew the policy, they knew they were violating the policy. So I`m on Walmart`s side so far. But, the situation turned into one where their lives were at danger, and following policy was no longer an option, so I`m on their side now. It`s a tough call.
  26. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 1:56 pm
    Meh, let them rob and then they might avoid that police
  27. Profile photo of CaptainPabst
    CaptainPabst Male 18-29
    1250 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 2:55 pm
    "Hundreds of defenseless civilians" lol quite the assumption. Maybe there was an undercover buying some TP right outside the door?
  28. Profile photo of mcshaker
    mcshaker Male 30-39
    30 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 3:00 pm
    I also was fired from my job for stopping an armed robber. Really, the state of the union depresses me.
  29. Profile photo of Golkar
    Golkar Male 18-29
    391 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 3:11 pm
    I get it, security is supposed to be for simple poo, they are not meant(or obviously allowed by policy) to disarm an armed man. However, the other option was to just let this freak go, and possibly shoot OTHER people. I understand Wal-Mart`s view and function in this, it`s a ridiculous liability; unfortunately Wal-Mart did the wrong thing and outright fired them.
  30. Profile photo of Psycholady33
    Psycholady33 Female 18-29
    61 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 3:33 pm
    A simalar thing happened to my husband when he worked at Walmart years ago. He was told to stop a tweeked out thief from running out the door, and when he did that the thief tried stabbing at him with a knive, so him protected himself by putting the guy on the ground. Walmart said it was against their policy and reprimanded my husband.
    He got his own back though. A few months later another thief ran out the door, but this time he just let him go. He told his supervisor that he didn`t see the point risking his life if he was going to get reprimanded for it
  31. Profile photo of lundyjack
    lundyjack Female 18-29
    102 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm
    I don`t think they should have fired them. It`s one thing if other people had gotten hurt in the process, but that didn`t happen. Also, as it seems, they were somewhat acting in self defense. If that had been my father, I don`t think he would have hesitated to shoot the robber himself -_-"
  32. Profile photo of SephirothA83
    SephirothA83 Male 18-29
    955 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 4:19 pm
    that`s what walmart does, fire people that do their job, give promotions to ones that don`t.
  33. Profile photo of Gafnaz
    Gafnaz Male 30-39
    138 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 4:56 pm
    So, this means one can go and steal from Walmart and peacefully walk away right? Or is it a scheme for them to get money from insurance? Either way, these two security guards are surely going to get a job quickly, I`d hire them!
  34. Profile photo of JoeYC
    JoeYC Male 18-29
    721 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 5:36 pm
    go rob their stores... we now know its their policy.
  35. Profile photo of lukeforv123
    lukeforv123 Male 18-29
    1058 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 5:50 pm
    Walmart sucks? Who would have thought?
  36. Profile photo of SmilinSam
    SmilinSam Female 18-29
    3599 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 6:41 pm
    f*cking policy isn`t worth more than human life.
  37. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 6:49 pm
  38. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 6:50 pm
    Wal Mart effing sucks donkeh bawls.

  39. Profile photo of Naitsirhc88
    Naitsirhc88 Male 18-29
    392 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 7:38 pm
    Walmart doesn`t Allow unionizing. Big business doesn`t wanna have to deal with their employees as humans. It`s all just numbers.
  40. Profile photo of topgun966
    topgun966 Male 18-29
    42 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 8:13 pm
    See its a catch 22. Most of the time, security is not going to be able to stop a robber. They will get hurt and/or killed trying Big companies have a standing policy to NOT interfere with a robbery. 1. they dont want the publicity of one of their employees dieing, 2. they dont want to have to pay wrongful death suits or work comp if they do get hurt. If these guys failed and get shot or killed it would have been stupid Walmart for letting their employees die blah blah. These guys while heroes should have just shut up stayed low and wait till its over. Also if they hurt one of the robbers, they AND Walmart can be sued by one of the robbers...I know how effed up that is but that is our legal system.
  41. Profile photo of Concetra
    Concetra Male 18-29
    2050 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 8:48 pm
    Is that a man or a woman on the right?
  42. Profile photo of mcflylives
    mcflylives Male 30-39
    334 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 9:00 pm
    had the kid gotten out of the office and some customers had have been able to stop him from getting away, THEY would have been hailed by wallymart as heros and given free stretchy pants for life. it`s B.S. they got fired for that.
  43. Profile photo of techstorm
    techstorm Male 40-49
    100 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 9:23 pm
    Walmart policy sure has changed since I was in LP. Back in the 90s we were told to use ANY reasonable force necessary. In 8 years I stopped 3 people with weapons. Guess what I got... promoted to district supervisor! It`s a shame to see what Walmart has done to these people.
  44. Profile photo of FCMXD
    FCMXD Male 18-29
    181 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 10:28 pm
    They said in the video that they did get out of his way and that he put the gun in their back and that`s when they used force to protect themselves.

    At what point does it go from "interfering" to "I don`t wanna die for $6 an hour"?
  45. Profile photo of sbeelz
    sbeelz Male 30-39
    2868 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 10:28 pm
    Fcuk Wal-Mart.
  46. Profile photo of gatorade777
    gatorade777 Male 18-29
    1194 posts
    February 16, 2011 at 11:01 pm
    Fcuk Wal-Mart.
  47. Profile photo of LuckyDave
    LuckyDave Male 18-29
    675 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 12:00 am
    Yeah, this doesn`t really surprise me. I kind of joined George Carlin a while ago on the divorce of my own race. There literally are no words to describe my disappointment.

    There`s this great old term that we used to use here in America: Vigilante. Even if the guards had some how, in some way, put the other customers at risk, I am pretty sure that one of the customers would have seen him waiving a gun as he attempted to flee, and tackled him like he was Bret Favre.

    And no matter how low Wally-World`s prices are, I think that deserves a boycott, or perhaps I`ll just try and steal stuff and waive a gun at the guards, the more I involve, the more I get fired.
  48. Profile photo of ruthless1990
    ruthless1990 Female 18-29
    3001 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 12:43 am
    i hope someone who`s willing to pay them more than minimum wage hires them now, cause they seem pretty awesome
  49. Profile photo of SvampeBob
    SvampeBob Male 18-29
    3076 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 3:14 am
    drat walmart is stupid.. but at least I learned how to write jeopardy. :-D
  50. Profile photo of Hiromi
    Hiromi Female 18-29
    1149 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 3:37 am
    Ugh, walmart.They`re always so closed minded.
  51. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 4:29 am
    Does Walmart have an official policy not to tackle armed robbers? Yes.

    Did the staff agree to that policy when they accepted employment with Walmart? Yes.

    Is Walmart correct to fire employees who do not comply with the policy they agreed to? Yes.

    Is it still sucky? Hell yes.

    But what`s the alternative? Allow them an exception to the policy? Sure, they could, but you can see Walmart`s opinion here; if they allow this exception, then every other employ, past present and future, who falls foul of the policy are going to kick up a fuss and ask "why were they let off the hook, but not me?"

    They just have to suck it up. They had a choice; do it Walmart`s way, or do it their way. They made their choice, knowing the consequences, now they have to accept the consequences.

    They made the right choice. Losing a job at Walmart isn`t exactly the worst consequence. And I`m sure they`ll have PLENTY of job offers from other less-sucky empl
  52. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 4:30 am
    Last word = employers. Why does IAB cut off at about 950 characters when the limit is 1000? Bah.
  53. Profile photo of SavageNation
    SavageNation Male 40-49
    186 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 5:12 am
    To Musuko42 : I couldnt DISAGREE with your post anymore. Why in any sane name ought to have been fired for DEFENDING themselves against a man who roostered a gun back & threatened their VERY LIVES with any means as the thief said "he was going to leave". At this point Wal-Mart policy has NOTHING to do with it. Every instinct has to protect your life. I wasn`t aware that WalMart also had your life under signed contract & they ought to have allowed the risk of being shot dead just so as to appease WalMart. How absurd.
  54. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 6:04 am

    Walmart didn`t say they COULDN`T defend themselves.

    It just said they would lose their jobs afterwards if they did.

    Got it? Walmart didn`t PREVENT them from doing anything. They merely laid out, in advance, what the consequences would be if they did it.

    You know, that c-word. Consequences. The things that adults are meant to be aware of and accept.

    Yes, too right it sucks, and they are justified in complaining about losing their jobs. But one wonders...did any of them think to complain about having to sign up to that policy when they started to work there?

    If you don`t like the policy, don`t agree to it (find work elsewhere), or do something to get it changed (that`s what unions are meant to be for...shame they can`t have them).

    You CAN`T agree to a policy, and then try to ignore it when it suits you. I`m sorry, but it`s true, even in cases like this.
  55. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 6:09 am

    PS: just to clarify, I`m not referring to situations where the policy is illegal; law trumps policy, obviously. But where the policy is legal, if you sign up to it, then you get what you signed up to.

    And if the policy says "fight with robbers and we`ll fire you, no exceptions", and you sign on the dotted line and agree to that, and it`s all legal, then it`s a contract, and they have every right to hold you to it.

    The sucky thing isn`t that they won`t let them off the policy. The sucky thing is that they were required to sign that policy in the first place.
  56. Profile photo of gary8162
    gary8162 Male 40-49
    939 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 6:39 am
    Well, at least I now know that if I`m going to rob Wal-Mart, I`ll bring a gun with me. If they can wrestle me to the ground for shoplifting but have to let me go when I brandish a gun, then it`s time for me to put together a shopping list and go shopping with gun drawn. Maybe I could get security to push the cart for me. That okay with you Wal-Mart?
  57. Profile photo of DJRedeye
    DJRedeye Male 30-39
    14 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 11:20 am
    What a crock of sh*t!! how can security guards be disciplined let alone fired for doing their jobs. Policy or not that sucks...
  58. Profile photo of poofydoom
    poofydoom Female 18-29
    61 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 11:38 am
    thiiiiiiis sucks :/
  59. Profile photo of Jonix
    Jonix Female 18-29
    74 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    If security guards aren`t allowed to be security guards, then I would like to know their job description.

    NOW HIRING: Walmart Security Guard
    JOB DESCRIPTION: Fly on the Wall

  60. Profile photo of SavageNation
    SavageNation Male 40-49
    186 posts
    February 17, 2011 at 2:03 pm
    Musuko, I do understand completely what your saying but what about law of nature self preservation trumps bylaws I would does really stink the entire situation & I sincerely hope these 4 will get some media attention that will cement them a new & better job!
  61. Profile photo of random882
    random882 Male 18-29
    325 posts
    February 18, 2011 at 12:35 am
    And this is why America is going to poo! ....

Leave a Reply