McDonalds' Employee Fired After Shooting Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Oatka

New member
http://www.kprc.com/hou/news/stories/news-20000703-191943.html

Well, sad to say, it comes as no surprise in these PC times. You'd have thought they could've said he was severely reprimanded (i.e. "Good On Ya!") and let it go at that.
No more Big Macs for me, there's a Wendy's in town.

God forbid there's another holdup/shooting, but if so, I hope the survivors and kin of the dead sue the hide off McDonald. Now THERE's a worthy lawsuit.

"McDonalds' Employee Fired After Shooting Robbers
One Suspect Still On The Loose
HOUSTON, Updated 3:53 p.m. CDT July 3, 2000 -- A McDonalds' janitor who shot two robbers at a northeast Houston restaurant was fired for breaking the hamburger chain's rules about carrying weapons at work.
It is against McDonald's policy for employees to possess guns on the restaurant's property.

Willis Lee was touted as a hero after he kept the robbery suspects from robbing and shooting McDonald's employees and patrons.

Three men carrying rifles entered the McDonald's on Lockwood Drive on June 26 and held a cashier at gunpoint. Lee followed the three men and shot two of them. One suspect is still on the loose.

Two of the suspects were identified as Clarence Davis Winslow and Timothy Lee Martin. Both men were taken to area hospitals and were charged with aggravated robbery.

Copyright 2000 by Click2Houston.com. "

It took some ferreting out, but here's McDonald's comments address: http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/corporate/info/contacts/comments/other/index.html
 
Hopefully, some business in Houston will need a loyal janitor and will hire Lee. The implication of the whole affair is that he should have just let these guys rob and shoot the employees and customers. Robert
 
Text of my response to McDonalds follows:

This is in reaction to your recent decision to fire the janitor, nay, the heroic janitor who possibly saved the lives of your own staff in Houston recently by shooting the armed robbers who were in the process of making an unannounced cash withdrawal.

Cowardly, low minded ignorant wretches.

Harsh words perhaps, but the more printable of the comments I have made and will continue to make about your corperate policies regarding employees with weapons on company property.

Afer the lockup staff at the New York Wendy's were duct-taped and executed a few months ago, I thought that perhaps the fast food community would take notice.

No.

Instead, when a man steps forward, willing to risk his life to foil a robbery and possibly save the lives of his coworkers, you fire him.

Dastardly blackhearted corperate souless wretches.

Rest assured that as long as that man is unemployed, neither my family or any of my coworkers and friends will be eating at the local McDonalds. Instead, we will be spending our dollars at Burger King. With the power of the internet, expect an organzed boycott of your tasty products in faver of vile burgers made by a more enlightened chain.

With disgust for you,
Alex


[This message has been edited by wakal (edited July 06, 2000).]
 
EVERYONE SHOULD WRITE A LETTER TO MICKY-D'S ON THIS

here is mine...

I am sure you are aware of the recent incident in Houston in which a janitor at one of your resturants used a personally legally owned handgun to defend himself, his fellow employees and your store from an attack that consisted of a number of rifle armed gunmen.

This man should be considered a hero. But instead you have recently fired him for 'breaking' a 'company policy' against carrying a weapon while at work.

This leads me to only one conclusion, that you would rather see what happend at the Wendy's resturant in NYC (where all employees were rounded up into the back room and shot.)

By this action (ceasing the employment of the janitor in Houston) you are supporting a pro-crime environment. I consider this a danger to my personal wellbeing.

It is for this reason, and becuase i find it particularly apauling that you choose to fire an employee who has committed no crime, that i will no longer dine at your establishment.

Luckily, there are many other resturants to take your place. However, even if there were not, i would still avoid McDonalds resturants becuase of your pro-crime philosophy.

Not a penny more, will you see, from me.

Sincerely,



------------------

~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
My two cents, I mean $3.95 worth (their food s**ks anyway).......

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I just read about the janitor in Houston who was fired for saving employees and customers from armed robbers.
I am appalled at this action. Just a week or so ago, a young Domino's delivery woman was killed. Also, are you unaware of the Wendy's employees who were bound, robbed and KILLED just a month or two ago?
That you would prefer a similar fate for your employees and customers, simply for the sake of being "politically correct" or making an example of an employee who violates "company policy," regardless of how many lives he may have saved, disgusts me.
You have just announced to the criminals of America that you will not stand for employees who defend themselves. You have given an open invitation to armed robbers to enter your stores with guns and knives and do whatever they wish to the customers and employees.
I no longer feel safe bringing my three-year old son into your establishments. For every McDonald's there is, there is also a Wendy's, Burger King, etc. just around the corner. I will no longer patronize any McDonald's until you change your company policy of making easy targets and victims of your customers and employees.[/quote]

[This message has been edited by CindyH (edited July 06, 2000).]
 
last line in Oatka's opening thread... then click on "Other comments..."

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ctdonath:
Got an address?[/quote]



------------------

~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
Dear Sirs,
It is my understanding that you have terminated the employment of Willis Lee, the janitor who foiled the attempted armed robbery at one of your establishments in the Houston area, and quite possibly saved the lives of your other employees. Regardless of your policies, this man should be commended for his bravery, but instead you fired him.
Until I hear that Mr. Lee receives his job back with a hefty wage increase, and cash bonus($$ big bucks), I will no longer purchase food from any of your world wide franchises, and will encourage others to do like wise.
Sincerely,

I hate their food any way, so what the heck!
 
Sent the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I find it reprehensible that you have found it necessary to fire the employee in Houston who thwarted an armed robbery. Company policy or not, is there no room for common sense? At the very least the gentleman prevented a felony from being committed, and may very likely have saved lives. In that the same crooks had already targeted the resturaunt before, there is no reason to suppose they wouldn't have returned yet again. Eventually employee and/or customer blood would have been spilled by these miscreants. I'll not be patronizing any longer a company that punishes good deeds.
[/quote]

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
 
What follows is in NO WAY an indictment of the actions of the brave janitor in this story. It is, however, an attempt to focus on what really bothers us about this case.

OK. Flame gear on.

I would just like to point out that, while we may disagree with McDonalds' policy towards employees and firearms, this janitor clearly broke company policy. Unless there is some evidence that he was unaware of said policy (which I consider unlikely since you're probably required to sign a "I've read and agree to follow all company policies contained in . . . " before you start working), it sounds like a legally justified (NOT morally, l-e-g-a-l-l-y) firing.

I would suggest that TFL members might have more luck demanding that McDonalds change its policy, NOT that they should withhold action against this employee. This guy probably thought he was taking a calculated risk by carrying in spite of company policy. He might have figured that not dying like the Wendy's employees in NYC was worth the risk of loosing a job. Still, that was his call. To fire someone for breaking policy on a serious issue is McDonalds' call.

I'm not trying to split hairs, I'm just trying to focus our arguments.

As an example, I have a job that I really like with a company that takes good care of me. It also happens to entail working in a secure/classified materials environment which meets federal government standards across the board (i.e. we're employees of a private company whose policy is functionally identical to the DoD). Thus, carrying a weapon (even if you have a CC permit) is VERBOTEN!!. If I were to feel the need to be armed at work, I would have the choice of either 1) breaking the rules or 2) pushing the company to enhance my security in some way (anything from increased security staff and physical systems to allowing me to carry my own weapon on company property). If the company isn't gonna provide security and won't let me protect myself, then I need to find a new job. If I choose to carry in defiance of policy (ex. - when working in the office alone on weekends as I sometimes do) then I need to be prepared to face the consequences.

There are all kinds of reasons why a large company needs to carry through with predetermined punishment for something like this (the old slippery slope argument). Asking them to look the other way because their policy is wrong post incident seems to me to be putting the company in an un winnable situation.

Flame away.


------------------
Best,
- Jawper
 
Jawper, yes, in most jurisdictions a private company may restrict carrying of weapons in any manner they see fit.

Legally justifiable. Morally, absolutely not. So Mr. Lee ignored his company's policy and saved lives in the process. That tells me that he has more stones than the entire McD's BoD: he knows that some rules aren't worth following.

Personally, if I had a McD's franchise, I'd offer Mr. Lee a job at twice his old salary and pay for his relocation. That's a helluva lot cheaper than fighting wrongful death lawsuits, wouldn't you agree?
 
There have been how many spree shootings at Micky D's in the past years?

Remember Luby's, the Louisiana Pizza Kitchen, and the Wendy's. I would feel it necessary that the front line workers are packed.
 
Coinneach,

I hear ya. But I'm trying to keep my redteaming hat on.


This part of your post I agree with
>>Personally, if I had a McD's franchise, I'd offer Mr. Lee a job at twice his old salary and pay for
his relocation.

This part I actually find questionable (I know it's more a rhetorical comment on your part, don't get me wrong)
>>That's a helluva lot cheaper than fighting wrongful death lawsuits, wouldn't you agree?

I can't imagine anyone winning a court case postulated on an argument of "If McDonalds had only allowed more people to carry firearms, my daughter would be alive today." Not in today's political environment. As a layman only, I'm assuming that most legally accepted definitions of providing a reasonably safe environment for one's customers do not require measures to protect customers from violent criminals. I might be off on this but I'd think we'd have heard something from some enterprising lawyer representing the families of the Wendy's employees (or even the families of the Texas Lubby's victims from all those years ago) by now.


------------------
Best,
- Jawper
 
Jawper, I didn't say winning, I said fighting. In most cases it's cheaper for a pro-disarmament company involved in a massacre to quietly settle with the outraged relatives.

The almighty buck wins again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top