Walmart Employees Fired For Disarming Thief[FIXED]

Submitted by: eugenius 6 years ago

And they were SECURITY employees! They were doing their job, Walmart--and you fired them. You suck.
There are 61 comments:
Male 325
And this is why America is going to poo! ....
0
Reply
Male 233
Musuko, I do understand completely what your saying but what about law of nature self preservation trumps bylaws I would figure...it does really stink the entire situation & I sincerely hope these 4 will get some media attention that will cement them a new & better job!
0
Reply
Female 74
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

Seriously...
0
Reply
Female 61
thiiiiiiis sucks :/
0
Reply
Male 14
What a crock of sh*t!! how can security guards be disciplined let alone fired for doing their jobs. Policy or not that sucks...
0
Reply
Male 945
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?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@SavageNation

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.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@SavageNation

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.
0
Reply
Male 233
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
Last word = employers. Why does IAB cut off at about 950 characters when the limit is 1000? Bah.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
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
0
Reply
Female 1,148
Ugh, walmart.They`re always so closed minded.
0
Reply
Male 3,076
drat walmart is stupid.. but at least I learned how to write jeopardy. :-D
0
Reply
Female 3,001
i hope someone who`s willing to pay them more than minimum wage hires them now, cause they seem pretty awesome
0
Reply
Male 675
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,193
Fcuk Wal-Mart.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
Fcuk Wal-Mart.
0
Reply
Male 181
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"?
0
Reply
Male 100
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.
0
Reply
Male 334
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,050
Is that a man or a woman on the right?
0
Reply
Male 42
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.
0
Reply
Male 392
Walmart doesn`t Allow unionizing. Big business doesn`t wanna have to deal with their employees as humans. It`s all just numbers.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
Wal Mart effing sucks donkeh bawls.

0
Reply
Male 3,431
UNIONIZE FOOLS!
0
Reply
Female 3,598
f*cking policy isn`t worth more than human life.
0
Reply
Male 1,063
Walmart sucks? Who would have thought?
0
Reply
Male 721
go rob their stores... we now know its their policy.
0
Reply
Male 138
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!
0
Reply
Male 955
that`s what walmart does, fire people that do their job, give promotions to ones that don`t.
0
Reply
Female 102
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 -_-"
0
Reply
Female 61
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
0
Reply
Male 391
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.
0
Reply
Male 30
I also was fired from my job for stopping an armed robber. Really, the state of the union depresses me.
0
Reply
Male 1,249
"Hundreds of defenseless civilians" lol quite the assumption. Maybe there was an undercover buying some TP right outside the door?
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Meh, let them rob and then they might avoid that police
0
Reply
Male 3,315
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.
0
Reply
Male 161
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
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.
0
Reply
Male 4,793
"The policy makes sense"

Fack you, no it doesnt.
0
Reply
Male 4,793
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.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
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.
0
Reply
Male 84
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.
0
Reply
Male 5,194
00:22 - dat AZZZZZ! Wait... what was the video about?
0
Reply
Male 10,845
That`s messed up.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
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.
0
Reply
Female 781
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.
0
Reply
Male 51
Damnit, thanks for letting everyone know "the policy." Now I don`t know if I want to go to Wal-Mart for awhile.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
process is process i guess
0
Reply
Male 19,888
Sorry about the pre-roll commercial, guys.

I found a CNN video without ads, but I guess it wasn`t working for everyone.
0
Reply
Male 1,587
Eh. Policy makes sense, but you have to know there are situations that require exceptions, or at least further study.
0
Reply
Male 290
@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.
0
Reply
Male 6,694
Well I guess they should have done nothing like always and just kept their jobs.
0
Reply
Male 3,842
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.
0
Reply
Male 612
they probably got fired for not following correct protocol.
0
Reply
Male 360
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)
0
Reply
Female 57
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 injured....you`re screwed like these 4 guys. Yet another reason why I am glad I left the hell-hole that is retail.
0
Reply
Male 67
0
Reply
Male 1,107
It`s not loading for me.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
I had a friend that got fired from Domino`s for macing a robber. true story.
0
Reply
Male 1,620
Link: Walmart Employees Fired For Disarming Thief[FIXED] [Rate Link] - And they were SECURITY employees! They were doing their job, Walmart--and you fired them. You suck.
0
Reply