"Your job or your life?" Topic

A store clerk in NH 24hrs store was fired for defending himself against a robber armed with a knife. When the masked, armed man approached him (the video shows the knife carrier going towards him), the clerk pulled his legal licensed pistol.

Well, the would be robber realized he had brought a knife to a gun fight and fled. The clerk then called the police and manager.

The manager then fired him for violating company policy of having a weapon at work.

link

This one had video from the store.

link

The guys has a good view of events, basically I can always get another job, I can't get another life. Rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

The company just doesn't see why people are upset about their actions (they were protested after word came out).

I say good for the clerk, the only thing he did wrong was not put two center mass on the robber.

Amen Solzh.

Crazy; no-one got hurt, a crime prevented, and maybe it will make the blagger think twice about pulling that stunt again.

Crazy.

Agreed.

Name and shame the company. I have a policy. Don't do business with such a despicable firm.

Ok, whilst a crime has been prevented, the robber escaped, now they will return armed (since dishonest people have no problem getting weapons) and shoot someone because they have been forced into an escalating cycle.

If I had been threatened by the knife… take the money, I can get more (or in this case it's not mine anyway)

Mind you, rules are rules…. no weapons at work must be strictly enforced.

If it happens again, I hope the robber will patiently wait so they can threaten/kill the shop owner, and not their wage slave.

(Bit of a rant, since we have gun control in the UK so only people with criminal intent are armed with guns, but I did manage to get stabbed whilst working, and was threatened whilst working by a customer armed with multiple knives.)

I can imagine stores in tha chain being targetted in future:

'In accordance with your organisations policies, I am robbing your store and you have to hand over the money. If you do not hand over the money, then I will report you for failing to follow the corect procedures and you will be sacked for Health and Safety reasons'.

I mean, you don't need knives or things, obviously that was way OTT by the crim…

Most businesses these days, especially those that are of high-visibility, suggest to their employees to co-operate with the perpetrator and give them whatever they demand. I can see their point, given that the company would rather take a small loss of profit than risk the needless loss an employee to a crime and the inevitable lawsuit from the surviving family.

Still, this guy shouldn't have been fired. I say forget about the job he lost and someone step up and give him a much better, safer job!

Locally, three businesses close to use have been robbed
over the past year. In one, the store owner/clerk was
shot, along with a customer. Each died.

In another, the owner/clerk was stabbed – four times.
Also died.

In the third, the perp was shot and killed by a
'carrying' customer.

Ok, whilst a crime has been prevented, the robber escaped, now they will return armed (since dishonest people have no problem getting weapons) and shoot someone because they have been forced into an escalating cycle.

What nonsense. You have no way of knowing what this creep will do in future. Except you can pretty reliably predict that he will continue to be a social parasite and a general boil on the ass of humanity.

The clerk did exactly right. When someone threatens you with deadly force, he may not choose to let you live, even if you comply with his demads. Of course if you're defenseless, compliance is your only choice, but this clerk was armed. A good citizen doesn't kill or injure others unless it's absolutely necessary for self defense. That's not just my opinion, it's the law. When the thug fled, the clerk put his gun away. Exactly right. Well done, armed citizen.

Actually, criminals *do* have a problem getting weapons: the problem of money. Effective firearms that work reliably when you need them to cost money, as does ammunition to maintain proficiency. All this costs more when obtained through illegal channels. Most criminals are poorly armed with trash that doesn't go bang when you pull the trigger. Most criminals squander what cash they can get on blow and hos. Gangs share firearms among members, some rent their weapons to free-lancers. In a free country, an honest working citizen with even a modest steady income from work has a good chance to become better armed than the avarage street thug who threatens his life. And he should be. In my opinion.

This store has a bad policy. Publicity and public outcry will change that. This thread is part of that process. In my opinion.

Thanks for posting Solzhenitsyn.

Wouldn't it be nice if a convenience store had a secret compartment hidden somewhere in the back where an armed, paid guard could monitor the store and be there…just in case.

Yeah, I know. Money, money, money.

"Ok, whilst a crime has been prevented, the robber escaped, now they will return armed (since dishonest people have no problem getting weapons) and shoot someone because they have been forced into an escalating cycle."

How, exactly, is the thug 'forced' into an 'escalating cycle'?

I won't spend another dime in a Shell station or store!

I avoid them any way their prices are all ways higher and now I know that your not safe in them because they don't let the workers have guns.

So, the criminal will never come back, because they were threatened by a gun?

Or the criminal won't come back, because he can't afford a gun?

Or the criminal (or another criminal) will come back and Rob the chain, because they know the chain doesn't allow armed staff?

Personally, I would think that it is more likely that chain will be robbed, because they know that employees are unlikely to be armed.

I hope the police give the ex employee a good citizen award, and that multiple job offers are available .

Just as an aside, but can only honest people in the US get weapons, as from looking at reports on our tv news in the UK there does seem an awful lot of gun crime.

Gun laws in the United States vary from State to State, but in general, if you have been convicted of a felony crime (major offense) you can not own a gun. Also, if you are diagnosed with mental illness you can not buy a firearm.

Any sort of violent misdemeanor (lesser offense) will often bar you from having a firearm.

In Massachusetts there are MANY criminal charges that will keep you from having a firearm, not all of them are related to violence. At one time the idea of drunk driving should bar a person from ever owning a firearm came up for discussion. If you use poor judgment with alcohol, how can we trust you with a gun? Ya, take away a persons Constitutional Rights forever because they had too many at the wedding, watching the ball game or out with the girls on the town. Drunk drivers kill many more people than firearms, but we only take the driver's license away for 30 days to 6 months.

Massachusetts often claims "the toughest gun laws in the nation" and that may be so, but laws and the punishments given out by courts are two different things.

The Bartley – Fox Law in Massachusetts was written that if you have an illegal gun you MUST serve 1 year in jail in addition to any other time for other criminal acts. In reality, it is never given out as a sentence by the judges or courts.

I was listening to a defense attorney and an Asst. District Attorney working out a plea on a drug dealer. Both agreed that the defendant in the case was going to be found guilty and were now working out how much time he must do, let's make a deal time.

The ADA said to the defense attorney that because his client was caught selling cocaine for the 3rd time AND had been caught with an illegal handgun for the 3rd time, that he would have to go to jail for…………….6 months.

At this time, I broke into the conversation and said words to the effect, "you gotta be kidd'n me? 6 months on a 3rd gun offense?" The ADA told me to mind my own business and they walked away to continue talking.

You would think with the toughest laws in the nation with guns Massachusetts would want a three time convicted armed drug dealer to do more than 1/2 a year in jail, but that is very common.

I've also had conversations with prisoners who were doing time for armed robbery, home invasion and other violent acts were they used guns. I asked each of them separately and at different times, how they obtained guns being convicted criminals. They said it was easy, you made it known you were looking to buy a gun and within a few days someone would put you in contact with someone who was selling an illegal gun.

I always thought that if you wanted to cut down on crime involving guns you only needed to REALLY enforce the laws that have been written, not cut down on time with the usual "let's make a deal".

Get rid of 1 year in jail for possession of an illegal gun, make it 5 years – to be served, no early release. You use a gun to threaten someone or rob someone – 10 years. If you shoot the gun at someone – 15, injure someone – 20 and if that person dies as a result of your criminal act – life, no parole. I'd like the "journey on the gurney", but this is Massachusetts.

Gun laws in the United States vary from State to State, but in general, if you have been convicted of a felony crime (major offense) you can not own a gun. Also, if you are diagnosed with mental illness you can not buy a firearm.

Yeah, like that stops a lot of them from breaking those laws as well What you meant to say, I think, was they cannot legally buy or possess, a point yo make later in your post.

I fully agree with enforcing the existing laws and enacting new ones where necessary where plea deals like the ones you discuss can't happen with gun related crimes, and escalators based on folks injured or killed.

Most gun laws on the books and being passed seem to be more about "By golly we ought to do something!" rather than addressing the actual problem. Just look how well it has worked in outlawing assault, battery, murder, robbery, burglary and so many other problems. Pass a law and the problem dries right up and is solved. Right, Chicago? You too D.C.? Philly?
Detroit?

Thought so.

I'll keep my mouth shut on this one, because it's dangerously close to Blue Fez territory and the last time I got into a discussion with guns here, it got stupidly ugly real fast….

I must apologise to Maddaz for slapping him over one of his arguments. He has proved himself the better man by PMing me and discussing the point reasonably. Now I don't know whether he and I agree or disagree, but he has tried his best to make his views clear to me. I probably have a foggy head.

Get real people, these days companies loose more money from lawsuits then they will ever loose from someone robbing their stores. So for companies, it cheaper for them to let their stores get robbed. When was the last time you saw a security guard in a bank? It's cheaper for the banks to not hire a security guard (not because of the pay, but the liability if/when they get injured or killed during a robbery) and tell the tellers to cooperate with all bank robbers. Which is how banks get robbed by guys with nasty looks and a note. Yea, it sounds stupid and the poor clerk get the raw end of the deal, but what if the guy with the knife had a friend with a gun? Worse all around, which is why they don't arm the employees.

The NRA love to shout that having more guns make things safer. Talk to insurance companies and they tell you the opposite. More guns means less safety, and since Insurance Companies are putting their money on the line, if more guns meant more safety, the Insurance Companies would be insisting everyone would be armed.

Anther side point I would make, you can by Insurance for Terrorist activities for pennies a year. Why? Because Insurance Companies know the odds, and will give you outrageous benefits for nothing, because they know they are just taking your money for something they will never be paying out on. Ask for a Insurance policy against effects from global warming and only billionaires can afford it.

Electric Wave, screw the insurance companies, and their accountants and their lawyers. We have a human right to defend ourselves. Not defend the companies' money, defend ourselves.

Zippyfusenet – And by that same argument, they have a right to defend the Companies money, which means firing the employee that put the company at risk.

I am not saying it's necessarily right. I am not a fan of big business, I stay away from chains as much as I can, and support my local small businesses. I hate corporate America. But I am not going to shove my head in the sand and pretend that the world works otherwise. Ignoring the Insurance Companies facts and data because I don't like Insurance Companies (and I don't, Mafia protection rackets are more honest then Insurance Companies) doesn't mean I cannot deny the fact that they make billions of dollars, and the way they do is by knowing the odds.

I'm not going to get involved in a gun control argument but you keep saying the insurance companies feel less guns means more safety.

Don't they really feel less guns means fewer lawsuits which means less they have to pay out? I'm betting it's the more lawsuits that have them against guns, not the safety aspect.

(Bit of a rant, since we have gun control in the UK so only people with criminal intent are armed with guns, but I did manage to get stabbed whilst working, and was threatened whilst working by a customer armed with multiple knives

We also have a murder rate massively lower than the US.

Let the crook have the money.The company's losses are covered by insurance. I once worked for a golden-arched corporation that shall remain nameless,and thats what we were taught.