Best Buy Employee stops shoplifter, gets fired

What a nation of wussies we have become:

---

 

I would have tried to stop the guy too-

And, I probably would have also been fired. But, the reason for that policy is simply due to the potential for law suits. If I slam a robber on the ground- they could claim physical harm, and sue Best Buy for much more than whatever he stole is worth. The policy is in place no doubt because it has happened.

It reminds me of when my ER doctor friend tells me they have to see every single patient- including the drunks, the liars and the people with emotional issues- because if they don't- they can/will be sued by the one guy where something bad actually does happen later in the shift.

Life sucks- try modifying our tort policy against the favor of lawyers, who, by the way probably make up a majority of Congress in both parties.

 

If I slam a robber on the ground- they could claim physical harm, and sue Best Buy for much more than whatever he stole is worth. The policy is in place no doubt because it has happened.
__________________________________________________

this is what is wrong with our legal system. every da/police friend i have had has always told me that if you have to defend yourself during a burglary attempt in your house, make sure you kill them so they cant come back and sue you...i mean seriously, that is how pc we have become, the criminals have more rights than their victims.

 

I'd be willing to bet this kind of policy is in place at many retail places. I know where I've worked, it was in place, so I'll give the POV of the employer. Here's why...I've been in the restaurant business for a long time now, and hard and fast policy that's been in place for all my time is, never pursue a walked tab. It's a dangerous endeavor, and not the role of the employee to handle. I've seen a situation like this escalate, where my employee had a table walk a tab and he followed them to the parking lot to collect. The situation escalated, no physical violence, but it was to that point. I've read of waiters getting the bad end of a car hauling *** to get out of the parking lot (after walking tab). This is for the protection of the employees and has very little to do with a lawsuit. Firing the employee as Best Buy did is a tough call, I was able to protect my employee cause nobody was going to find out. I imagine Best Buy wasn't in the same boat.

 

I favor giving enormous latitude to employers in hiring and firing decisions. I don't pick and choose when they should have this latitude in any except extreme cases. This doesn't meet that test.

 

I favor employers treating rules violations on a case-by-case basis and using common sense and decency before they decide to take somebody's livelihood away from them.

This employee stopped an illegal and immoral act.

 

and in doing so, exposed the employer to tremendous risk.

The employee should have been fired.

 

The problem isn't that the employee exposed the employer to risk by interfering with the perpetrator's crime.

The problem is that we as a society have accepted the premise that a criminal, caught in the act, has a cause of action to sue the victim of his crime.

THAT is utterly ridiculous.

 

Best Buy forbids its employees to do X, employee does X, employee gets punished. Not that difficult to understand. Stores employ loss prevention people to handle this, it's too big a risk for the company to be having rank and file employees tackling shoppers.

 

Mos companies have policies that prevent employees from chasing a suspected thief or from fighting with them. This is a no-brainer.

And the issue isn't about harm to thief but about potential collateral damage to others n the store. There was an electronic store I remember hearing aboutbin which an altercation such as this led to a Sony Wega TV being knocked over and killing a little girl.

 

********.

You violate company policy, you get shitcanned.

If you're late a few times, you get a talking-to.

Chase a shoplifter, you are done.

 

Some of you need to return your degrees to UT.
The policy exists for 1 reason....to keep the EMPLOYEE FROM GETTING KILLED. Best Buy and other business have NOTHING an employee should risk his life to recover.
If you are stupid enough to put your life, and possiibly the lives of others, at risk for electronic equipment then you deserve to be fired.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

 

I doubt the man "risked his life" for the sake of the electronics being stolen. I rather suspect he did it because he was outraged at the brazen behavior of the thief and jumped in to stop it.

As to the consequences of his action, were I to do the same at my store, I would be fired. I know this, I have been told this by our loss prevention guy. We all have. I feel bad for the guy - but if he had been informed of the policy (and the consequence of breaking it) and disregarded it anyway, then this is a justifiable action the company has taken.

I just wish he could sue the thief for causing his unemployment and win a nice fat judgement against him.

 

That's what he gets for being so stupid he has to work a retail job.

 

Look, nobody is debating the wisdom of the company's policy or whether or not they have the right to fire this guy.

What I am bemoaning is the fact that they are firing this guy for doing the morally right thing by stopping this theft.

I've worked for large companies that had rules, but it was mostly up to management (there were some exceptions) as to whether those rules would be enforced.

 

"morally right"?

Really?

 

This seems one of the few times I'm in agreement with Bevo Incognito.

Give the employee his job back Best Buy.

 

Have to take the opportunity to agree with BI as well.

The guy deserves a bonus. As soon as he shaves and gets a haircut, he should get his job back.

 

can't sue (or at least can't collect from) someone who has no money...

 

The sensible posts here begin with hornpharmd and rickysun.

I don't believe the concern is that the criminal will sue the store. The concern must be that a violent situation erupts where there are employees, customers and bystanders. An act by an untrained, unauthorized employee could lead to injury or death to innocent persons. I think that is morally solid ground as well as legally solid ground.

To those calling this "PC" gone wild, please explain to me what you mean by "PC." That term has been drifting for years and I'm often puzzled by how people use it. Originally, if I am not mistaken, Political Correctness meant refraining from or criticizing an action or statement that can be misconstrued to be a wrongful or offensive action. The best example was always the hubbub over the proper use of the word "niggardly" which has nothing to do with race but just sounds bad.

I truly would like to read what those of you using the term on this thread mean by it.

For the record, I think the firing was justified and likely unavoidable so that Best Buy could prove they are serious about this policy should an incident like this go bad in the future. If they don't fire the guy, they show they are not committed to the policy. I'm not a lawyer, so I may be way off.