Academy fires Asst. Mgr. who grabbed Handgun thief.

This guy was not a police officer, not even store security, took his life in his own hands when he chased this guy, FOR WHAT??
I'm glad he got his job back but chasing a bad guy ain't exactly smart.
 
Like dogtown_tom suggested, Academy had a PR opportunity and blew it. HR can be so blind at times.

There was a HR lady in San Francisco (private sector) who walked into a restroom and saw a man atop of a woman strangling her. The HR lady tore the towel dispenser off the wall and beaned the assailant on the head with it. The top HR person heard about it and asked the corporate attorney if they, following their zero tolerance towards violence in the workplace, should fire the HR person/heroine. The attorney was shocked. Fire her? Give her an award! HR aren't the smartest bunch around.:rolleyes:
 
To me, there's more than a bit of difference between someone stealing a blender or DVD movies from a store than stealing a PISTOL!!

Most stolen merchandise certainly isn't worth risking life and limb to stop. A gun, on the other hand, is a much different matter. I don't care what employee rules say, and even if the actual law doesn't require a response, there is the moral "law" that does.

The lesson is clearly illustrated in Marvel's Spiderman. (and it doesn't involve Spidey's superpowers, either).

young Peter Parker could have stopped a fleeing robber. He didn't. (somewhat understandable, as the guy robbed had just cheated Parker) Parker says "not my problem", and the robber gets away.

A little bit later that robber carjacks, and shoots Parker's beloved Uncle Ben, who dies in Peter's arms. This loss turns Parker into the crimefighter Spiderman.

Point here is, because he did nothing, when he could have done something, other, innocent, people were killed.

I would have fired the guy if he put himself at risk trying to stop the theft of a TV or a phone. For stopping the theft of a gun, I'd give him a raise!!
 
44 AMP said:
To me, there's more than a bit of difference between someone stealing a blender or DVD movies from a store than stealing a PISTOL!!

Most stolen merchandise certainly isn't worth risking life and limb to stop. A gun, on the other hand, is a much different matter. I don't care what employee rules say, and even if the actual law doesn't require a response, there is the moral "law" that does.
Click to expand...
This point seems to be getting overlooked by a lot of people.

Sure, a DVD, a toaster, even a wide-screen television ... let him walk and call the cops. A gun is a different animal. This is another example of how zero tolerance policies have come to overshadow common sense.
 
This is a dramatic example of "written policy"....Imagine an F-18 with a few laser-guided bombs at a fuel conservation altitude, watching insurgents carrying RPGs or other weapons near a road used by US or coalition troops.
The Marine or SEAL on the ground watches everything, knows that the nearby mud hut has no signs of women or children.

A military attorney in Wash. DC must approve the strike. But it takes so long that the insurgents are gone when the approval is transmitted to the "Hornet Driver" (F-18 pilot).

Apparently, any level of micro-management is a good thing (?), when a few soldiers on patrol are hit by RPGs the next day. Not many **local** judgement calls are allowed.
 
Last edited:
No one has mentioned that had the thief been armed Academy would have had 1 less manager.
Click to expand...

That's because the "stuffed shirts" that write the rules only care about returns for their investors, life is secondary. Absurd statement? I'm proving absurdity by being absurd. ;)
 
No one has mentioned that had the thief been armed Academy would have had 1 less manager.
Click to expand...

Maybe because the thief was armed. He had just stolen a pistol! And, one report I saw said they found two loaded magazines in his backpack. SO, I'd say he was armed.

The fact that he hadn't yet stopped to insert a magazine and load the pistol when he got tackled, was serendipity. He was armed.
 
UncleEd Glad the employee got his job back.

But I think stores should tell their employees
they are expected to stop thievery.

And if said employee gets his lunch handed
to him, then tough petunias. The employee
is not fired, he's just dead or seriously
maimed for life.

Maybe the store will give a big settlement
to the employee's family or see that he gets
medical treatment for six months.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this post is not very well thought out and I feel dumber for having read it.
 
jmr40 said:
When employees try to detain thieves lots of bad things can happen. What if the employee is wrong about the suspected thief, or tries to detain the wrong person. That has happened before and people have pulled guns on store employees who wrongly tried to detain them. What if the thief pulls a gun and innocent shoppers are hit by gunfire. Thieves being chased have ran over innocent shoppers in parking lots trying to get away. If anyone is injured, even the bad guy, there will be a lawsuit and the store will lose.
Click to expand...

Academy did the right thing as far as current legal realities go. Suing someone for the actions of someone else needs to be banned from the legal system.
 
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA — Dean Crouch was fired a few weeks ago from his manager position at an Academy Sports location. The reason; He tackled a man who had just stolen a pistol and ammunition from the store.
After receiving national attention for his actions, the chain has decided to give him his job back.
“I am pleased to report that the head of Academy Sports + Outdoors stores spoke with Mr. Crouch and offered him his job back and Mr. Crouch accepted,” his attorney Ryan Hobbs said.
 
I'm going to recount a story. I am reading a book called "Raising Men" by Eric Davis - a great read even for those without children. Davis is an ex-Navy SEAL instructor and he recounts how he, his kids, his wife, and his friends kids and wife were returning to his truck parked after doing some camping. Someone was rifling through the back of it and Davis recounts his intended course of action with his friend: to take their families, retreat to a distance, and observe. Their wives, being a little more in favor of immediate action, acted quicker to confront the thief. He goes on to recount a training drill where you were "safe" in a white box and had no time limit. The drill was to teach you to stay in safety when present.

Did the gun grabber present an imminent threat? Probably not. Yes he presented a long term threat but considering that he is now out on bail (accepting facts presented in this thread) that threat has not gone away. The assistant manager, while acting in good faith to prevent harm, gained nothing in the long term and took on substantial risk.

Heroic? Yes it was a heroic action and I applaud it. Personally I think those maintaining possession of a gun have a duty to maintain that possession so in that since I think what he did was right.

Meaningful in the long run? Nope. Just accepting risk for no meaningful gain. As has been noted the would be thief is not actually prevented from doing it again.

I can see the argument from the employers view to "stand down" and focus only on being a good witness for those who are given the duty of law enforcement.
 
Did the gun grabber present an imminent threat? Probably not. Yes he presented a long term threat but considering that he is now out on bail (accepting facts presented in this thread) that threat has not gone away.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with all of this. First off is the fact that the thief was an imminent threat. There is no justifiable "good" reason for stealing a pistol. Arguably the thief might have not been an immediate threat (at a specific moment), but he absolutely was an imminent threat as well as a long term threat.

Ok, so he's out on bail now, that the threat is back on the street is the responsibility of the Judge who granted bail. NOT the guy who DID STOP the threat, that day.

The assistant manager, while acting in good faith to prevent harm, gained nothing in the long term and took on substantial risk.
Click to expand...

I do agree with this, however, something was gained by taking the risk. The thief was stopped, he didn't get away with that gun, on that day. He didn't get to use that gun on anyone, that day, or on any other day. Maybe the thief will steal another gun, successfully, and maybe use it for evil, on another day, but he didn't get to do it on that day, he was stopped.

Sometimes, taking "substantial risk" for a short term gain IS the right thing to do. I think not taking an action that could have short term gain, for fear that it won't have long term gain is a very,very poor choice when people's lives are at risk.

Would you sleep soundly if you had failed to act, and because of that someone innocent died? What if the thief that you could have stopped, and didn't even try to, shot someone in the parking lot after getting past you? What if that someone was your wife or child ??? Would you still say it wasn't worth taking the risk because you couldn't see any long term gain???

How about an active shooter situation? Would you say it wasn't worthwhile to try and take him down, because he wasn't shooting at the moment you had the opportunity?? Would you let him go on, doing what he wanted, shooting other people, or would you DO something if you had the means??

Rabid dogs must be stopped. Not doing so, when you could, because the dog isn't trying to bite YOU at the moment isn't, in my opinion. the right answer.


Now I'm not saying throw your life away in a vain attempt, that would be stupid. But if you're the guy one the spot, and you decide, in the few seconds available, that you could act, successfully, then I think it would be moral cowardice not to.


On the other hand, if, in the limited time available, you decide that nothing you could do would matter, and would only add to your personal risk, its not cowardice to do nothing, its prudence.

None of us was there, none of us had to make that decision in a few seconds time, and so, none of us should armchair quarterback his decision.

Just my opinion, and worth every penny you paid for it. :D
 
44 AMP you have some valid points in there and I cannot help but thinking back to the old Spider Man stories that lead to the death of Uncle Ben :). Society has changed since those were inked and probably not for the better.

I think there is a duty that goes with owning a deadly weapon. For the record I would put that duty to exist with other obvious means of inflicting trauma like a vehicle so I don't intend to paint this into an anti-gun argument. No I don't intend to go to the extreme of "well that COULD harm someone" so I am going to have to beg the use of a Potter Stewart definition. If you own something so readily capable of killing or harming others you have a certain duty to protect it

I understand the policy of many stores to not pursue shoplifters. But we are not discussing a big screen TV, a deck of cards, or anything of that nature. We are discussing a gun and that is, to me, a fundamental difference.

I guess I need to readjust my thoughts on this in regards to Academy. The manager acted in good faith to protect the interests of both the store and the general public. Imagine the risk Academy has exposed themselves to. Prohibited person who needs a gun? Academy seems like an option. Just skip the paperwork.
 
Every store policy is written so it can mean anything management wants it to mean at any given time. That being said, I doubt this guy will stay at Academy too long. He may love his job but the publicity around this event will likely be a distraction for him to work their. It also reflects badly on upper management.
A precedent has now been set that if you break the rules you can get away with anything. But why did he do it....really?
To stop a shoplifter or a dangerous criminal? Guess he can say anything he wants and there is no way of knowing if he is just a gung ho manager or a wannabe superhero.
Either way he did the right thing.....despite his intent.
 
Company policy is usually dictated by the insurance policies they hold. Risk reduction is often more important to the owners/managers of a business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top