- Status
Companies don't need to let employees police the store.
If you empower employees to stop thieves you empower them to stop people they "think" are thieves. Next think you know you are getting beat down on the way out of the store because they think you might be stealing a pack of gum
If you empower employees to stop thieves you empower them to stop people they "think" are thieves. Next think you know you are getting beat down on the way out of the store because they think you might be stealing a pack of gum
Shame on anyone that is justifying this guy losing his livelihood for doing the right thing to protect a minuscule portion of a MASSIVE GREEDY corporations profits. time to think, are you a corporate peon or a human being. WTF is happening to this world?!?!?!?!
stm1185 is right.
Liberals (generally) are partially responsible for the downfall of the West. Liberals (generally) defend criminals. So STFU!
Liberals (generally) are partially responsible for the downfall of the West. Liberals (generally) defend criminals. So STFU!
[citation][nom]macewrox[/nom]This reminds me of a lawsuit when a man broke into a woman's house through the skylight, fell down and landed on the kitchen knife set and sued the crap out of the woman. Good times.[/citation]
http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/
There was a lawsuit with a kid and his school, but it didn't involve a woman and they settled for $250K or so (the kid became a cripple). The govt. was the one who had to pay out for this. The skylight was meant to have been boarded over and was unsafe.
I disagree with the kid suing the school but it's a bit different from a burglar and a woman.
http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/
There was a lawsuit with a kid and his school, but it didn't involve a woman and they settled for $250K or so (the kid became a cripple). The govt. was the one who had to pay out for this. The skylight was meant to have been boarded over and was unsafe.
I disagree with the kid suing the school but it's a bit different from a burglar and a woman.
This is why we are turning into a bunch of overly politically correct wimps in this country. Its sad and China will take over soon if we dont wake up.
I beleive a[citation][nom]jgalecio[/nom]Soooooo if I go to BB now and walk out with a brand new tv that I wont pay for they wont stop me!? Man we are some of the brightest lights in the world! To make matters worse yes the thief could sue BB and win if he stubs his toe on BB premises. We are becoming an epic fail we need to stop the absurdness![/citation]
Can he sue if he got shot and died(best ending possible)?[citation][nom]swamprat[/nom]The correct response is to wait until they're out of the door (and thus have committed a crime) and then tackle them (being America I guess that means shoot them in the back and then ask them to return the stolen goods... no offence intended, of course).[/citation]
Being a burglar should be a dangerous job. Deadly if possible.
Can he sue if he got shot and died(best ending possible)?[citation][nom]swamprat[/nom]The correct response is to wait until they're out of the door (and thus have committed a crime) and then tackle them (being America I guess that means shoot them in the back and then ask them to return the stolen goods... no offence intended, of course).[/citation]
Being a burglar should be a dangerous job. Deadly if possible.
[citation][nom]swamprat[/nom]The correct response is to wait until they're out of the door (and thus have committed a crime) and then tackle them (being America I guess that means shoot them in the back and then ask them to return the stolen goods... no offence intended, of course).[/citation]
I worked for a company as a loss prevention associate (part time). I cannot speak for Best Buy, but usually once you step outside, we can no longer pursue you. That is grounds for termination.
I worked for a company as a loss prevention associate (part time). I cannot speak for Best Buy, but usually once you step outside, we can no longer pursue you. That is grounds for termination.
johnny_2bags
Distinguished
- Jan 31, 2010
- 10
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]megamanx00[/nom]WTF??!! Give this guy some raises. Shit now people are just going to wear a mask, walk into that Best Buy, and walk out with stuff.[/citation]
Reminds me of when the local paper ran an article saying the police weren't going to go after gas pump drive offs anymore. They're just asking for it. Let's all just go to Best Buy and rob them blind. Why not, you know? They must be well insured for that sort of thing, so let's go nuts!
I tell you, if some dirtbag tried to rob my store, unless he gets the jump on me he's going to be staring down the business end of a 12 guage. Customers appreciate knowing that too.
Reminds me of when the local paper ran an article saying the police weren't going to go after gas pump drive offs anymore. They're just asking for it. Let's all just go to Best Buy and rob them blind. Why not, you know? They must be well insured for that sort of thing, so let's go nuts!
I tell you, if some dirtbag tried to rob my store, unless he gets the jump on me he's going to be staring down the business end of a 12 guage. Customers appreciate knowing that too.
SethEffect
Distinguished
- Aug 4, 2008
- 9
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]COLGeek[/nom]Saving a life vs. saving a laptop is two different things, wouldn't you agree?[/citation]
Way to contradict everything you've been saying in all your useless posts. According to you the issue is liability correct? No room for morality. Would there not be liability issues for both being injured/injuring a thief during a robbery and for providing untrained medical assistance to a dying customer? Say that the employee did indeed save the customers life, however his lack of skill made it so the customer never healed correctly and had medical issues afterward. This employee should then be fired? And then be liable for a lawsuit because he tried to save a life? This is the system you are arguing for? Really?
I can see how passionately you are trying to defend "the system", and frankly it's disgusting. Rules like these are only set in place for the sake of saving a penny, not for the sake of the employee. Blanket rules that cover companies ass' but allow for thieves for prosper. And in the end the consumer ends up paying the difference. But what else can we expect from companies whose only interest is money right?
If BB wants to rid itself of any kind of liability that is perfectly understandable from a business perspective. But why not simply have it written into the policy that if an employee does decide to act while observing a crime that BB will not be held responsible. Oh yea lets also make so that criminals cant sue if injured while committing a crime. That should a be a good start.
Way to contradict everything you've been saying in all your useless posts. According to you the issue is liability correct? No room for morality. Would there not be liability issues for both being injured/injuring a thief during a robbery and for providing untrained medical assistance to a dying customer? Say that the employee did indeed save the customers life, however his lack of skill made it so the customer never healed correctly and had medical issues afterward. This employee should then be fired? And then be liable for a lawsuit because he tried to save a life? This is the system you are arguing for? Really?
I can see how passionately you are trying to defend "the system", and frankly it's disgusting. Rules like these are only set in place for the sake of saving a penny, not for the sake of the employee. Blanket rules that cover companies ass' but allow for thieves for prosper. And in the end the consumer ends up paying the difference. But what else can we expect from companies whose only interest is money right?
If BB wants to rid itself of any kind of liability that is perfectly understandable from a business perspective. But why not simply have it written into the policy that if an employee does decide to act while observing a crime that BB will not be held responsible. Oh yea lets also make so that criminals cant sue if injured while committing a crime. That should a be a good start.
ubergeetar
Distinguished
- Aug 13, 2008
- 3
- 0
- 18,510
Alright, folks. Want free electronics? Just make sure your face is covered from the cameras and steal from Best Buy; they can't stop you!
jitpublisher
Distinguished
- May 16, 2006
- 221
- 0
- 18,860
It is a sad state of affairs when a scumbag criminal has more rights and can come out of a situation like this better than the real hero. This is the state that our nation has fallen to, and one of the fundamental problems of what is wrong with our country today. The only way this could have came out better is if the employee had a handgun, and shot the guy point blank right between his eyes as he was trying to get up an out the door.
Stupid indeed. All because states don't have laws that say criminals can't sue anyone if they get injured by someone/something while committing a crime. This is why lawyers and politicians are screwed up...they should have passed something like that a long time ago 😛
Welcome to to the land of the nonfree and the cowardly corporations. It has not been the land of the free and the brave since the law and our govt gave corporations the rights of a us citizen. Corporations now run the govt, don't let the propaganda fool you. It is only good business to buy the govt you operate in so it does not affect your business! That is why things are so screwed up!
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Old text messages not showing up on new android phone
- Started by Weathered95
- Replies: 48
-
-
-
Question Asus Tuff Fx507 not recognizing new WD_Black 4tb ssd in secondary m2 slot- Started by BelgradianSalsa
- Replies: 10
-
-
Facebook
Twitter