[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.