Wendy's Employee Kills Robber

Really?! The inside was just robbed. Not to safe if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Oh right, got it. You want to go with the gunman because you feel safer knowing he has a gun? Or maybe you think the robbers left a bomb behind or that one of your fellow employees is actually with the robbers?

Yes, the inside was just robbed and the robbers left. The robbers WERE the danger and now the danger is no longer there. Why is that hard to understand? So in the context of what happened, it wasn't that the employee was fleeing the store because he felt unsafe. He left the store to follow the robbers and as such, keeping himself in harm's way intentionally.

Its bad enough a person has to put up with being robbed but to have folks say that because you were robbed you are somehow less entitled to the dirt bag robbers is just beyond me.
Click to expand...

Entitled to the robbers? Really? So you really aren't suggesting that the inside was unsafe and that the employee needed to be outside to feel safe again as implied by your original statement. You are saying that the employee was attempting to hunt down the robbers. That is a highly dangerous thing to do and does not increase one's safety. And what happened in this case? The employee went outside into an area where there could have been many more bad guys and what happened? His life was endangered again by a robber pointing a gun at him.

The robbers can leave but you can't is what your saying.
Click to expand...
Nope, not saying this at all. The hero of our story was not trying to leave. He was going after the robbers as you noted.

So if a gunman shoots up the mall and then tries to leave, you can't leave also because you might run into the gunman again?!
Click to expand...
We aren't talking about a mall. We are talking about Wendy's, but the same concept applies. You can leave, but it is pretty stupid to follow on the heals of the threat to try to feel safer, which is what you are saying. The Wendy's in question had multiple exits, but the employee followed the robbers.

Keeping yourself in proximity to the threat does not increase your safety.

+1 this^^^^. How does one determine when the scene is safe unless you check?
Click to expand...
As a single employee with a gun, which is easier to check and verify as safe, the limited area inside of a building or the unlimited area outside of a building?
 
Last edited:
From the brief info provided, we can only infer that he followed immediately to perhaps engage. Do we know for sure he followed with the intent to engage? Or was it in fact to get a better description, or make of car if used, or to get a direction the robber took off in? Turtling is a much option. Perhaps he should have hollered ollie ollie oxen free first!
 
DNS said:
Sure, but this Wendy's employee need not have dishcharged his weapon. The threat left the store. He could have remained safe and sound inside and kept his job, assuming he will be fired for this.
Click to expand...

Common sense notwithstanding, I don't know of any prohibition to following a robber for suspect or vehicle identification purposes. I cannot comment on the state in question, but many states' laws also permit the victim of a robbery to use reasonable force to recover their property. Civil repercussions may be another matter entirely. I don't disagree with your point about him being safer, had he remained inside. He did break that boy from sucking eggs.
 
I think dude needs to look for a new line of work whether he gets fired or not. Maybe in a gun shop where they carry because they know they get robbed and not a fast food place where they don't carry because they know they get robbed and occasionally employees get executed by the robbers.

Same lousy job for low pay, less risk involved.
 
Same lousy job for low pay, less risk involved.
Click to expand...

"If you do something you love, you'll never work a day in your life!"

I've never worked in a Funstore, but I did work in fast food as a teenager.

I think I'd enjoy slinging guns....... Slinging burgers and fries is a greasy, nasty job.
 
The question here isn't if what the employee did was legally correct or not given that it apparently was. The question is whether or not his actions were prudent. The risk and danger to the employee dropped considerably once the robbers left the Wendy's. Following the robbers into the parking lot raised the danger and risk back to being life or death, and for what? To get a good description? To recover money that wasn't his? In what reality does that sound like a good idea?

Did the employee follow the robbers out with the intent to engage? I don't know, but he did follow them out prepared to engage.

Was it immeidate? He was able to get outside before the robbers had even left the property. That is pretty quick.
 
I'm not arguing that it was the prudent thing to do or that it was beneficial to his employment and financial security. The decision was his and he survived the first battle. I pray that he doesn't get charged or sued into oblivion.

The oft-repeated advice of 'don't resist' is usually sound, but it has created an environment where armed robbers ply their trade freely and without fear of being gunned down by someone who simply refuses to be a victim. After 30+ years of wading in these melees, it still does my heart good to see a terminal failure of the victim selection process.

Y'all can preach against them all you want. I'm too busy enjoying the warm glow from the Second Amendment, working as advertised.
 
Last edited:
There are so few facts reported in this story that none of us can really conclude anything.

One thing I will propose is that Savannah is a little safer place today because of what this Wendy's employee did.

Hopefully there will be a follow up in the media.
 
The oft-repeated advice of 'don't resist' is usually sound, but it has created an environment where armed robbers ply their trade freely and without fear of being gunned down by someone who simply refuses to be a victim. After 30+ years of wading in these melees, it still does my heart good to see a terminal failure of the victim selection process.
Click to expand...

This^.

In the short term, "Give them what they want, and they will go away." works great ....... but it ignores the fact that because it worked, they will come back for more. Others will see the same, and do likewise.

...... pour le encourage les autres .....

If thugs were routinely shot when engaged in thuggery, there'd be fewer thugs and much less thuggery, of that I am sure.
 
People need to STOP complying, these pieces of sub human excrement need to DIE! It's a shame, I used to like Wendy's, need to find a new place to eat if they fire this guy.
 
I have seen a lot of stories in the last few weeks about robbers and home invaders running into armed citizens.

Maybe some ammo tax money should go to a special fund.
 
There are so few facts reported in this story that none of us can really conclude anything.

One thing I will propose is that Savannah is a little safer place today because of what this Wendy's employee did.
Click to expand...

I'd say that is in for the win. And often times that is the best you can hope for.
 
"Doesn't always work that way..."

Two men walked into the M & M Quick Foods in the 1200 block of North Austin Boulevard in the Austin neighborhood about 8:30 p.m. and shot the officer, Clifton Lewis, several times with a "machine-type" pistol. They then grabbed his gun and star and fled, sources said.
Click to expand...

Looks like they targeted him for his badge and gun ...... they knew where the gun was and went after it. Had there been "Armed Citizens" present ..... but this was Chicago, where the only guns are held by either the cops or the robbers, so no chance of that. The robbers in this case knew with certainty where the gun was, and went after it. This is not possible in Free America: anybody could have a gun, and use it:

http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=12427756
 
Wendy's restaurants tend to have a lot of large windows in their outer walls, as do many fast food joints.

Having not owned a restaurant or concenience store before, is there insurance for theft/robbery? Even if there is this may not be effectively communicated to all employees who may act in part out of a desire/rationalization to save someone from great losses.
 
Last edited:
Double Nought: "Yes, the inside was just robbed and the robbers left. The robbers WERE the danger and now the danger is no longer there."

And you'd know this because... You are WRONG -- they left the ROOM. Why would you NOT try to determine what's going on? What they are doing? Improve your tactical position and understand the strategic environment!? At that point seemed he felt he could help gather info to i.d. them later. Apparently he has -- at least one.
 
Only when Victim's stop being Victim's will crime decrease. Ummm whiskey for my men Beer for my horses. Eye for and Eye. Ect ECt. Thumbs up for him.Hope it all works out for him.
 
Having not owned a restaurant or convenience store before, is there insurance for theft/robbery? Even if there is this may not be effectively communicated to all employees who may act in part out of a desire/rationalization to save someone from great losses.
Click to expand...

Of course. Most crappy little places like Wendys and 7-11 have training course and insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top