See: http://cut.gd/mqv1

 

Convenience store clerk, on the job for 10 years, gets held up at knifepoint in Nashua, NH (close to Massachusetts). The clerk pulls his gun, the creep walks out of the store. Nobody is injured.

 

The clerk had a carry permit, and the gun was legal.

 

Still, the next day, instead of receiving a bonus the clerk gets fired. I believe his employer was a Shell company. 

See: http://cut.gd/mqv1

 

Convenience store clerk, on the job for 10 years, gets held up at knifepoint in Nashua, NH (close to Massachusetts). The clerk pulls his gun, the creep walks out of the store. Nobody is injured.

 

The clerk had a carry permit, and the gun was legal.

 

Still, the next day, instead of receiving a bonus the clerk gets fired. I believe his employer was a Shell company. 

 

I guess the company thinks that the liability risk of being sued by the robber (or survivors/bystanders) for being shot by the clerk is greater than that of being sued by the clerk (or survivors) if s/he is shot or injured by the robber.  The problem with policies like this is that, sometimes, the "cash in the register" just ain't enough. If the robber is of a mind to "not leave witnesses," the clerk is doomed, no matter what they do. The clerk should have every right to defend themselves if directly threatened. Of course, the robber should realize that there are security cameras monitoring the facility. Perhaps, the company should post signs indicating this in plain view of the entries.

 

I don't know if the clerk/employee signed any "indemnification" agreements with the company (in the event of this kind of scenario), but if I were his/her lawyer (or one looking to start a class action), I'd be looking at "inadequacy of protection" issues (i.e. why no "bullet proof glass" to protect him... why no extra personnel on at night... Why wasn't the camera footage fed live to a security firm who might have called 911... etc. etc. etc.)?  Yeah, I know these things cost money... but it could have cost an (now former) employee his/her life.

Here's the company's press release. Looks like they were sort of backed into a corner because of an ill-thought-out policy:

 

Oct. 18, 2013: Statement from Nouria Energy Corporation

We take the health and safety of our employees very seriously. We operate more than 80 

convenience stores and it is our responsibility to make sure they are safe for everyone. Every 

aspect of our facilities – the lighting, the shelves, the windows, the landscaping, the security 

systems and more – is designed and installed with safety in mind. 

 

In addition, all of our employees are thoroughly trained on safety procedures and policies that 

have been endorsed by recognized law enforcement and security professionals. One of those 

policies is to prohibit employees from bringing firearms into the workplace. We believe this 

policy is the best way to keep everyone safe, and the experts in our field agree. We recognize 

that Mr. Cothran was a reliable and hardworking employee, and we certainly took his time with 

the company into consideration when this incident occurred. However, our policy of no weapons 

in the workplace is clear. Because it is a policy designed for the safety of all of our employees, it 

must be applied consistently to be effective. 

 

The National Association of Convenience Stories (NACS) [based in Alexandria, VA] endorses this approach to safety and 

security. “I have not spoken to a security expert who recommends arming employees in any 

manner,” said NACS executive Jeff Lenard. “The likelihood of violence escalates when store 

clerks resist, and even businesses that once had armed guards, such as banks, have pulled 

back on that practice because it creates the potential for a shootout.” 

We care more about the personal well-being of our employees than we do about the money in 

the cash register, and we will continue to pursue policies that give our workers and customers 

the best chance for a healthy and safe store environment.

Nouria Energy appears to be a local, small-time outfit.

 

Question: Does every company of significance have a firearms policy?

 

There is a decent chance that the crack head would have stabbed the cashier after cleaning out the drawer. Or before. 

 

As for guns causing "shootouts": Maybe I read the wrong news sites, but I can't remember the last time I heard of a situation like the one in Nashua going wrong. Examples, anyone? In other words, there a "shootout" ensued and the good guy died. On the other hand, I have heard of thousands of cases where an unarmed victim was maimed or killed.

 

Most of the shootouts I've read about involve the police. Hmmm...maybe we should disarm them and have the zombies take over.

Nouria Energy appears to be a local, small-time outfit.

 

Question: Does every company of significance have a firearms policy?

 

There is a decent chance that the crack head would have stabbed the cashier after cleaning out the drawer. Or before. 

 

As for guns causing "shootouts": Maybe I read the wrong news sites, but I can't remember the last time I heard of a situation like the one in Nashua going wrong. Examples, anyone? In other words, there a "shootout" ensued and the good guy died. On the other hand, I have heard of thousands of cases where an unarmed victim was maimed or killed.

 

Most of the shootouts I've read about involve the police. Hmmm...maybe we should disarm them and have the zombies take over.

 

 

I think the store/company might be considering a "nightmare scenario," where the clerk pulls the gun in their own self-defense, but the perp (if there are bystanders in the store) takes a "hostage" at gunpoint. Not that the perp might take hostages without the clerk pulling their weapon, but more likely to happen if the robber feels "more threatened" than they already do. I can see a point to that policy if other customers/bystanders are in the store. But if it's just the clerk and the perp, I think the clerk should be able to defend themselves. And I also think that's a reasonable, "teachable," exception to the policy (i.e. being "alone" vs. being with others in the store).

 

Still, did the company do their "due diligence" to keep the clerk protected?  Should there also be a policy of being behind "protective glass" during the night hours? Should there be other employes present at those hours (i.e. "No Lone Zone")? Should they be hidden from view but monitoring the security cameras and stand ready to call 911?

 

BTW, I do recall a story where a "restaurant" night asst. magager was jacked and chose to resist the perp, and was fired the next day. A very similar scenario, and dismissal for the same reason.

Nouria Energy appears to be a local, small-time outfit.

 

Question: Does every company of significance have a firearms policy?

 

There is a decent chance that the crack head would have stabbed the cashier after cleaning out the drawer. Or before. 

 

As for guns causing "shootouts": Maybe I read the wrong news sites, but I can't remember the last time I heard of a situation like the one in Nashua going wrong. Examples, anyone? In other words, there a "shootout" ensued and the good guy died. On the other hand, I have heard of thousands of cases where an unarmed victim was maimed or killed.

 

Most of the shootouts I've read about involve the police. Hmmm...maybe we should disarm them and have the zombies take over.

That particular policy is pretty standard in large retail concerns and has little to do with past situations or even common sense in most cases but everything to do with liability and being sued. Just about all of these company has a new employee sign off on a long lists of do's and dont's with them "cooperating" fully with a robber even helping in order to quicken the act or lose their job.

What the lawyers on retainer don't want is an errant shot from an employee hitting either another employee or worst yet a customer because the suit could possibly bankrupt a smaller retailer or seriously hurt the reputation of a larger.

They would rather the insurance take care of the rest than go to court to answer a wrongful death suit.

I think you (HBek and Duppie) are correct. I'm sure some aggregation of attorneys, accountants, and insurance pros have worked this out to the nearest dollar. They probably are insured for a worker or customer getting killed or injured on their premises. There's one rate for allowing concealed carry, and a lower one for a no-gun policy.

 

One would assume this actuarial construct would be based on fact, however. 

 

Again, what do you hear and read in the (mostly anti-gun) news? What I see is armed clerks coming out on top. CBS/NBC/CNN would cream in their pants if they could report on "A self-defense incident at a Manhattan bodega went terribly wrong last night..." You know, multiple bystander fatalities, clerk shoots himself, "AND THE THIEF WAS NOT EVEN ARMED." But it rarely happens that way.

 

BTW, I'm reminded of two recent incidents. The Empire State Building shooting where the cops wounded numerous bystanders but missed the perps, and the bodega robbery where the workers escaped but -- just when he thought he'd dodged a bullet -- the cops shot/killed one of them thinking he was the bad guy.

....but most of those armed "clerks" who don't have to answer to a corporate HQ  are overwhelmingly owner/operators and tend to be very motivated because they do know the monetary cost of losing merchandise or a life.

Sisifacation is real. dont fight, run away, give in.......do not resist......... resistance is futile...........Cue the arm bands and genocide.

I think you (HBek and Duppie) are correct. I'm sure some aggregation of attorneys, accountants, and insurance pros have worked this out to the nearest dollar. They probably are insured for a worker or customer getting killed or injured on their premises. There's one rate for allowing concealed carry, and a lower one for a no-gun policy.

 

One would assume this actuarial construct would be based on fact, however. 

 

Again, what do you hear and read in the (mostly anti-gun) news? What I see is armed clerks coming out on top. CBS/NBC/CNN would cream in their pants if they could report on "A self-defense incident at a Manhattan bodega went terribly wrong last night..." You know, multiple bystander fatalities, clerk shoots himself, "AND THE THIEF WAS NOT EVEN ARMED." But it rarely happens that way.

 

BTW, I'm reminded of two recent incidents. The Empire State Building shooting where the cops wounded numerous bystanders but missed the perps, and the bodega robbery where the workers escaped but -- just when he thought he'd dodged a bullet -- the cops shot/killed one of them thinking he was the bad guy.

 

Update:  Just caught a web article last night which says that a Wal-Mart associate that defended a woman but was fired for violating "policy" has been offered his job back     See article from the Missoulian.  No word as to whether or not the associate will accept the re-offer.

Update:  Just caught a web article last night which says that a Wal-Mart associate that defended a woman but was fired for violating "policy" has been offered his job back     See article from the Missoulian.  No word as to whether or not the associate will accept the re-offer.

Wait a minute. This guy was unarmed. Exactly which Walmart policy did he violate? Preventing a defenseless woman from getting raped?

Wait a minute. This guy was unarmed. Exactly which Walmart policy did he violate? Preventing a defenseless woman from getting raped?

 

It would seem that "engaging the perp" in any form (armed/unarmed, etc.) is a violation of Wal-Mart policy. Anything which causes tension and (potentially) further violence to escalate, I guess.  I think the policy forgot the "I need get rid of all witnesses," scenario. 

This is even sadder than no-gun policies. Our fists and bodies have become illegal weapons. Why isn't this bad for business? If I were a 98-lb weakling I'd steer clear of WalMart. 

 

Imagine it's early on a Sunday, and almost nobody is in the store. A guy starts beating and raping a woman right in the main aisle. Let's turn up the irony a bit: The woman is an employee. Nay, the manager!

 

All her coworkers follow policy and stand by, watching, until she's dead.

This is even sadder than no-gun policies. Our fists and bodies have become illegal weapons. Why isn't this bad for business? If I were a 98-lb weakling I'd steer clear of WalMart. 

 

Imagine it's early on a Sunday, and almost nobody is in the store. A guy starts beating and raping a woman right in the main aisle. Let's turn up the irony a bit: The woman is an employee. Nay, the manager!

 

All her coworkers follow policy and stand by, watching, until she's dead.

 

Well, I'd assume "policy" would be to call "security" or "911" and then get to safety, lest you become a victim as well. For a retailer as large as Wal-Mart, I'd think they'd have internal security, anyway, watching through multiple cameras, etc. to call 911 or send their own people. Heck, my supermarket has that (unarmed, though). As for the employees, I guess the policy logic being, "while one victim is unacceptable, 'many more' victims is even more unacceptable."  Unfortunate  for the "targeted" victim, but maybe they figure that since s/he is already "targeted"... Again, would they rather be sued by one victim's family or by *several* victims' families?

It's all becoming very clear. Good Samaritans, armed or unarmed, will step forward regardless. The policy limits or eliminates liability. Sometimes the company gives a "wink-wink, nod-nod."

 

But can you imagine the whopper of a lawsuit following the hypothetical incident I posted a few minutes ago? "Associates opened potato chip bags and dip containers, and pulled up cheap Chinese lawn chairs to watch our daughter/mother get beaten to death." 

 

OTOH these things actually happen in real life. Remember the story from a few years ago of the cops who refused to rescue someone who was drowning? Were they moonlighting for WalMart?

It's all becoming very clear. Good Samaritans, armed or unarmed, will step forward regardless. The policy limits or eliminates liability. Sometimes the company gives a "wink-wink, nod-nod."

 

But can you imagine the whopper of a lawsuit following the hypothetical incident I posted a few minutes ago? "Associates opened potato chip bags and dip containers, and pulled up cheap Chinese lawn chairs to watch our daughter/mother get beaten to death."

 

Hmmm. I wonder if Wal-Mart's employee policy indemnifies the associate, should they become "co-defendants" in that whopper of a lawsuit. Maybe that's why they have to "get to safety..." so they aren't seen on cameras actually opening those chips and sitting on the lounge chairs.

 

OTOH these things actually happen in real life. Remember the story from a few years ago of the cops who refused to rescue someone who was drowning? Were they moonlighting for WalMart?

Again, "minimizing" victims. Underwater rescue (especially cave rescue) requires special training. In Fl. there is a volunteer org. called IUCRR - International Underwater Cave Rescue and Recovery. They are called in to do the rescues for Law Enforcement in this area. If a "first responder" LEO who was not a trained recovery cave diver did this, they'd become the 2nd victim, putting the IUCRR crew at even greater risk, since they now have to recover two bodies. And, besides, I don't think the average LEO would carry the diving gear needed to do it. 

 

Or was this a drowning in a bathtub, or something?

A very small pond in the middle of what looks like a small town:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/illinois-firefighters-stand-idle-while-man-drowns/

 

He was so close to shore they could have thrown him a rope and pulled him out. 

 

Here's another one:

http://www.jems.com/article/news/california-man-drowns-while-fi

 

A female swimmer reached him, but all those "heroes" could not. 

 

Here's another one:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?id=8161285

(blamed on "Budget Cuts" -- SEE WHAT THOSE FUCKING REPUBLICANS DID?!!

 

Evidently idiocy and cowardice are not limited to Americans: http://cut.gd/IgbZ

A very small pond in the middle of what looks like a small town:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/illinois-firefighters-stand-idle-while-man-drowns/ He was so close to shore they could have thrown him a rope and pulled him out.

So the "pond" was frozen or semi-frozen at the time? Yeah, that could have been a true "Charlie-Foxtrot" if some of the first responders also got trapped below the ice attempting a rescue for which they weren't properly trained/equipped. Ice is considered an "overhead" environment, as are caves, in the diving world... requires special training. And, if the rescuers aren't properly geared up (specialized dry suits, etc.), they could also get hypothermic within minutes.

 

I realize it seems totally unfair to the one "already suffering" victim. But the objective of these policies is to prevent the rescuers from becoming victims as well. That can easily happen if the responders are not geared up or trained to do that kind of rescue. Yes, they could have thrown the victim a rope, but if the victim got towed under or pushed under by heavy ice (and if there were currents), s/he could have pulled whoever was on the other end of that rope into the pond with them. And what if the rope were caught on something or snapped?

 

The last thing that is needed at any disaster scene is rescuers being injured or killed, because it distracts the other rescuers that are still "rescuing." That is why an injured rescuer has the very top "triage" priority when it comes to being transported away from the scene and to the hospital, even if another victim has more serious injuries and has greater need for transport.

 

Does it make sense? Sometimes, absolutely not. But it is why they do it that way.

 

It's boilerplate policy package. Lawyers aren't writing this stuff from scratch every time somebody starts a company, they purchase or reuse something and then decide if any changes are needed. Since these policies are ubiquitous and there is some articuable justification (whether correct or not) it can be considered common practice or industry standard and the lawyer has no incentive to change it. It's not about the company's liability, it's about the lawyer CYA.

 

Here's the company's press release. Looks like they were sort of backed into a corner because of an ill-thought-out policy:

 

Oct. 18, 2013: Statement from Nouria Energy Corporation

We take the health and safety of our employees very seriously. We operate more than 80 

convenience stores and it is our responsibility to make sure they are safe for everyone. Every 

aspect of our facilities – the lighting, the shelves, the windows, the landscaping, the security 

systems and more – is designed and installed with safety in mind. 

 

In addition, all of our employees are thoroughly trained on safety procedures and policies that 

have been endorsed by recognized law enforcement and security professionals. One of those 

policies is to prohibit employees from bringing firearms into the workplace. We believe this 

policy is the best way to keep everyone safe, and the experts in our field agree. We recognize 

that Mr. Cothran was a reliable and hardworking employee, and we certainly took his time with 

the company into consideration when this incident occurred. However, our policy of no weapons 

in the workplace is clear. Because it is a policy designed for the safety of all of our employees, it 

must be applied consistently to be effective. 

 

The National Association of Convenience Stories (NACS) [based in Alexandria, VA] endorses this approach to safety and 

security. “I have not spoken to a security expert who recommends arming employees in any 

manner,” said NACS executive Jeff Lenard. “The likelihood of violence escalates when store 

clerks resist, and even businesses that once had armed guards, such as banks, have pulled 

back on that practice because it creates the potential for a shootout.” 

We care more about the personal well-being of our employees than we do about the money in 

the cash register, and we will continue to pursue policies that give our workers and customers 

the best chance for a healthy and safe store environment.

 

 

 

Do they ensure that NOBODY runs the place solo? No, then that there is a pile of crap as staffing the place with at least two sets of eyes and working surveillance cameras are the top two items on the list for convenience store safety. 

Do they ensure that NOBODY runs the place solo? No, then that there is a pile of crap as staffing the place with at least two sets of eyes and working surveillance cameras are the top two items on the list for convenience store safety. 

 

And, thus, the "risk/benefit" calculation.  Does having those extra eyes constantly cost more than the cost of the "insurance policy" for any lawsuits that ensue over such an incident?

A very small pond in the middle of what looks like a small town:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/illinois-firefighters-stand-idle-while-man-drowns/

 

He was so close to shore they could have thrown him a rope and pulled him out. 

 

Here's another one:

http://www.jems.com/article/news/california-man-drowns-while-fi

 

A female swimmer reached him, but all those "heroes" could not. 

 

Here's another one:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?id=8161285

(blamed on "Budget Cuts" -- SEE WHAT THOSE friggin REPUBLICANS DID?!!

 

Evidently idiocy and cowardice are not limited to Americans: http://cut.gd/IgbZ

Cops made the right decision on the last one. The one death is a shame but additional deaths of the "rescuers" would have been a tragedy. One should not attempt wading into 60 degree neck high water to "try" to rescue an emotionally disturbed person. That could be very dangerous.

Cops made the right decision on the last one. The one death is a shame but additional deaths of the "rescuers" would have been a tragedy. One should not attempt wading into 60 degree neck high water to "try" to rescue an emotionally disturbed person. That could be very dangerous.

When I was a kid we went to Lavalette, NJ, for one month every summer. 101 NY Avenue. Wonderful memories.

 

One year there was some kind of storm. We could not go into the water for a couple of days. Hurricane? Probably.

 

Eventually my mother and I walked up to the shore. The water around 61 degrees and rough. I went in. My mother didn't think anything of it. She met one of her friends and walked north a mile or so. I swam, following them, waded, and had a good time, about 20 yards offshore, almost all the way to Ortley Beach. I got out and got warm in a towel every few hundred yards and went back in, over and over.

 

I lived. 45 years later I survive. No damage.

 

WE HAVE TO STOP BEING FUCKING PUSSIES. 

 

If it was your relative you'd go in. So why would these cowards not go in to save the people they're paid to serve? They found an inflatable boat after the guy was hypothermic. Why not before?

 

UGGH.

I don't agree with it or like it at all, but If there is a clear written policy stating that there are no weapons in the workplace, you either follow that rule or you choose to work elsewhere.  I support the actions of the clerk and i believe the company should change the policy, but written as is, they did have the right to fire him.

 

If you had a business, you'd like to have it run in a fashion of your own choosing.