employees fired after disarming gunman caught shoplifting

[Knife]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14319284

4 Walmart employees fired after disarming gunman caught shoplifting
February 9th, 2011 @ 10:00pm
By Andrew Adams

LAYTON -- The shoplifter smashed Gabriel Stewart up against a wall. It didn't take him long to realize that pressure against his lower back was from a loaded gun held by a desperate man who didn't want to go to jail.

The gunman had a firm grip on Stewart's shoulder, telling him and three of his Walmart co-workers, "Don't make me do this."
The Walmart store in Layton

"Absolutely, time stopped," Stewart told KSL News. "I didn't know what to do."

Instantly, Shawn Ray and Justin Richins kicked into gear, spinning the gunman around. Lori Poulsen ripped the gun away and secured it. They all held onto the man until police arrived minutes later.

The four Layton Walmart employees felt it was mission accomplished. Police officers told them they had done everything right.

But a week later, all four were fired from their jobs. Walmart said their actions had violated company policy and put their fellow workers and shoppers at risk.

It was the afternoon of Jan. 13 when employees at the store saw Trent Allen Longton unwrap a Netbook computer in the electronics section and stuff it under his clothes.

Asset protection coordinator Poulsen met him at the door and ushered him back to the loss prevention room to confront him. Not long after, Ray and Richins -- both asset protection associates -- filtered in, followed by Stewart, an assistant manager, to witness.

Moments after he pulled out the small laptop, the workers say Longton also pulled out a handgun and charged toward the closed office door. Ray, Richins and Stewart were in the way. He grabbed Stewart as his way to get out.
If... the suspect has a weapon or brandishes or threatens use of a weapon; all associates must disengage from the situation, withdraw to a safe position, and contact law enforcement. -Walmart policy

"He looked right at me and said, 'The gun is cocked. C'mon guys, just let me go. I don't want to do this,'" Shawn Ray recalled.

The four believe their quick actions to disarm and secure the man helped prevent what could have been a tragic event. They held the man until a police officer arrived, who wrote in his report that the gunman was taken to the ground in his and citizens' "best interest and safety."

"I was thinking, 'Whose house am I going to tonight to tell their family their loved one was shot?'" Poulsen said. "You have to make a decision: Do I fight for my life or do I stand here and watch?"

Workers still can't believe what happened the next week.

"She said, 'You're fired,'" Richins recalled, of the person brought in to let him go. "You're being terminated for a violation of AP09." AP09 is Walmart's policy on dealing with shoplifters. A copy obtained by KSL shows employees are allowed to use "reasonable force" to limit movements of struggling suspects. If a weapon comes out, however, associates must "disengage" and "withdraw," the policy states.

The workers say they don't know where they would have withdrawn to, with the door behind them closed in a small room and the man charging at them. They contend they had no other real option.
If (motioning) is unsuccessful, the Authorized Associate may utilize respectful, light physical contact in directing the Suspect toward the AP office or other location. -Walmart policy

The former employees also are expressing concern about allowing Longton, armed with a loaded gun, out into the crowded store and beyond.

Longton, according to the police report, was a convicted felon who had multiple warrants out for his arrest. He was a restricted person -- meaning he wasn't supposed to be carrying a handgun. The handgun was loaded, according to the report, and contained a bullet in the chamber.

Layton police would not comment on the appropriateness of the Walmart workers' actions, but did acknowledge Longton -- with the information that had come through dispatch -- likely would have faced a stiff police response outside the store.

"Likely they (the officers) are going to produce their handguns and try and take the person into custody, because you've got to be ready for it," Layton Police Lt. Garrett Atkin said.

Longton pleaded guilty Monday to two charges: robbery, a second-degree felony; and the purchase, transfer, possession or use of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person, a class A misdemeanor. In exchange for his plea, three other charges were dismissed, including threatening or using a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel.

Longton is scheduled to be sentenced on March 28.

The four workers were full-time employees. Stewart had been with the company for more than 12 years. Poulsen, who was employed for more than seven years, had made Walmart a career. Ray said his dismissal kept him from purchasing a home.

"I honestly felt worse than when I had the gun to my back," Stewart said. "I honestly felt betrayed."

The former employees are considering their legal options.

Walmart defended the firings in a statement.

"We appreciate the intentions demonstrated by our associates in this situation, but the actions taken put their safety -- and potentially the safety of our customers and other associates -- in jeopardy," Walmart spokesman Dan Fogleman said. "In their roles within the store, they were aware of our expectations regarding safety and, unfortunately, their actions have led to them no longer working for the company." [CLICK HERE to read the entire statement]

Stories of similar firings exist, including one in Kansas last May. A Walmart worker in Wichita was fired when she followed a man outside the store and demanded proof that he had purchased a computer.

The man, according to news reports, kicked and hit the woman before letting go of the computer and running away. She was not an asset protection associate or a manager, and a spokesperson at that time contended she violated company policy and put herself and others in danger.

Corporate lawyers say company policies like the one at Walmart are common in the retail world. They're designed to protect employees and make sure they don't put merchandise ahead of their own safety.

Some security experts, however, take issue with the policy.

"I'm surprised they would be fired they're defending their lives," said David Lundberg, who was a police officer for 21 years, has additional security experience and now runs Utahdetective.com.

Lundberg believes concern over liability drives these policies.

"People slip and fall, get head injuries, that kind of stuff," Lundberg said. "So that's what stores are worried about is the liability -- getting sued."

Ok, I get that there is a huge liability in having your employees act like Rambo when some douche walks in and wants the money out of the cash register; I get why a policy like this exists. These guys aren't that. I guess you could say they could have let the guy just walk but if you actually have a gun in your back I'm pretty sure you are in such a position to whether you have no idea if the bad guy will pull the trigger or not. Once the guy decided his life was in danger, the guy had to follow through. Just seems like one of those things were Walmart is following the letter or their rules in spite of the spirit of them. I hope these guys do sue.

[Akhlut]

If a guy is 'just' taking money from a register, then, yeah, let him take it; you're life isn't worth the few hundred or thousand in the till.

But, if you're in an enclosed space and the guy has a gun in your back, that's an entirely different kettle of fish. The highest executives should, ideally, reverse this termination and give these guys their jobs back; if not, I hope that the people who got fired get a pretty penny from a large lawsuit against them.

[Cecelia5578]

If a guy is 'just' taking money from a register, then, yeah, let him take it; you're life isn't worth the few hundred or thousand in the till.

But, if you're in an enclosed space and the guy has a gun in your back, that's an entirely different kettle of fish. The highest executives should, ideally, reverse this termination and give these guys their jobs back; if not, I hope that the people who got fired get a pretty penny from a large lawsuit against them.

I generally agree, there's a difference between stealing some money or an XBox and threatening someone with a gun. In this case, though (and the story isn't very clear IMHO) I think the problem was that the employees tried to keep him in the loss prevention room even after he brandished the gun. At that point, they shouldn't have tried to interfere whatsoever, and just let him go.

At least that's what I'm thinking WalMart will say.

[Zed Snardbody]

This goes back to the security guards in California last year that were criticized for following their company's policy when that young girl was beaten on the train platform.

These guys have basically ended their careers now. Loss Prevention is a half way decent paying job, and now they're fired, and when they apply for another job and asked what happened and the answer is anywhere near "use of force" "took him down" no other company is going to touch them. Despite the fact they could very well have just saved their own lives, and possibly the responding cops or store patrons. Its not a good sign when a guy is desperate enough to shoplift with a pistol.

[Dalton]

Letting the guy loose after he pulled a gun would have put everyone in the store at risk instead of just those four people. And wouldn't they be trained in dealing with these kinds of situations? I don't get it. Another reason why I hate Wal-mart.

[General Zod]

Letting the guy loose after he pulled a gun would have put everyone in the store at risk instead of just those four people. And wouldn't they be trained in dealing with these kinds of situations? I don't get it. Another reason why I hate Wal-mart.

I find Walmart's policies kind of baffling. When I worked in retail our loss prevention staff would frequently hold down and detain shoplifters trying to get away with stuff, in some cases outright tackling them. It makes me wonder what Walmart's loss prevention is supposed to do exactly.

[Zaune]

I find Walmart's policies kind of baffling. When I worked in retail our loss prevention staff would frequently hold down and detain shoplifters trying to get away with stuff, in some cases outright tackling them. It makes me wonder what Walmart's loss prevention is supposed to do exactly.

Not get its employees beaten up or stabbed, or end up with a wrongful death lawsuit when something goes wrong and the perp ends up splitting their skull open on the corner of a shelving unit?

[Lagmonster]

Letting the guy loose after he pulled a gun would have put everyone in the store at risk instead of just those four people. And wouldn't they be trained in dealing with these kinds of situations? I don't get it. Another reason why I hate Wal-mart.

I find Walmart's policies kind of baffling. When I worked in retail our loss prevention staff would frequently hold down and detain shoplifters trying to get away with stuff, in some cases outright tackling them. It makes me wonder what Walmart's loss prevention is supposed to do exactly.

The article says that they're allowed to use force to subdue people as long as they don't pull out a weapon. It's the introduction of the weapon that changes the game - since WalMart staff are not armed and the company would rather lose a thousand dollar laptop than a human life, the rule is that a guy with a gun gets whatever he wants.

As an aside to the 'putting customers at risk' bit, I also somewhat wonder whether the store feels any obligation to throw its staff in the line of fire to protect customers. My guess is that they don't. It's a tricky situation and I can understand the corporate side from the view of managing the staff as an entire group - a live guy with a pink slip is better than a dead hero.

[Dave]

Letting the guy loose after he pulled a gun would have put everyone in the store at risk instead of just those four people.

I think the idea is to not make a person with a weapon feel threatened and likely to shoot. I also think the store is less at risk if a shoplifter with a gun is free to leave than employees scrambling to subdue a man with a gun, because of the potential for the gun to go off by accident.

One thing I keep seeing whenever I glance over self-defense, etc. websites is the emphasis that you are responsible for the safety of everyone around you if you try to disarm someone with a gun, and you are probably better off not risking it.

I mean sure, if he sounds like a psycho who was planning on randomly shooting people for fun on the way out, maybe it's better to try to gain control of the gun. But in this situation, it sounded like the shoplifter didn't actually want to kill or maim anyone, and the situation would have been resolved safely if everyone had calmed down, backed off and let him walk off with whatever he wanted.

[Knife]

The article says that they're allowed to use force to subdue people as long as they don't pull out a weapon. It's the introduction of the weapon that changes the game - since WalMart staff are not armed and the company would rather lose a thousand dollar laptop than a human life, the rule is that a guy with a gun gets whatever he wants.

As an aside to the 'putting customers at risk' bit, I also somewhat wonder whether the store feels any obligation to throw its staff in the line of fire to protect customers. My guess is that they don't. It's a tricky situation and I can understand the corporate side from the view of managing the staff as an entire group - a live guy with a pink slip is better than a dead hero.

I think the thing that changes in this situation is that the gunman had the employee up against the wall with a gun actually on his back. I could see Walmarts position if the gunman was leaving the room and the staff rushed him, but the gunman charged the staff and brandished a weapon. At that point the staff had no idea if the guy was going to shoot him or what and action is justifiable. He shouldn't have to get shot because the company is worried about Rambo lawsuits.

[Lagmonster]

I think the thing that changes in this situation is that the gunman had the employee up against the wall with a gun actually on his back. I could see Walmarts position if the gunman was leaving the room and the staff rushed him, but the gunman charged the staff and brandished a weapon. At that point the staff had no idea if the guy was going to shoot him or what and action is justifiable. He shouldn't have to get shot because the company is worried about Rambo lawsuits.

And the perverse part is that I'd even agree that these guys should win a lawsuit to get their jobs back - WalMart's random regional manager had to do his job and enforce its policy to send a message to dissuade would-be heroes, at which point a judge would have to decide if the circumstances were extraordinary enough to warrant a reversal.

A lot of these policies also seem to be plagued by vague wording like "reasonable force" and "imminent harm". Two people are likely to judge a situation differently even if they're in the same room, let alone afterwards, about where the line is drawn in these situations. It's fair to say that some laws and policies may require people to think clearly and critically in all situations, including when they're stoked up on adrenaline and have no time to plan ahead.

[gizmojumpjet]

But, if you're in an enclosed space and the guy has a gun in your back, that's an entirely different kettle of fish. The highest executives should, ideally, reverse this termination and give these guys their jobs back; if not, I hope that the people who got fired get a pretty penny from a large lawsuit against them.

Yeah, I'm sure they're going to be rolling in money after getting fired for breaking company policies in a right to work state! No doubt about it whatsoever! Shit, I'll bet you Wal-Mart won't even be able to produce any paperwork signed by these employees stating that they agree to abide by company policies and understand that they can be terminated for failing to do so when the case eventually goes to trial! What kind of megacorporation would bother with that sort of new-hire paperwork? That sort of I-dotting and T-crossing is for the little guys! I'll bet lawyers are tripping over themselves to beat down these guys' doors to solicit their business because it's such an open and shut case!

[General Zod]

But, if you're in an enclosed space and the guy has a gun in your back, that's an entirely different kettle of fish. The highest executives should, ideally, reverse this termination and give these guys their jobs back; if not, I hope that the people who got fired get a pretty penny from a large lawsuit against them.

Yeah, I'm sure they're going to be rolling in money after getting fired for breaking company policies in a right to work state! No doubt about it whatsoever! Shit, I'll bet you Wal-Mart won't even be able to produce any paperwork signed by these employees stating that they agree to abide by company policies and understand that they can be terminated for failing to do so when the case eventually goes to trial! What kind of megacorporation would bother with that sort of new-hire paperwork? That sort of I-dotting and T-crossing is for the little guys! I'll bet lawyers are tripping over themselves to beat down these guys' doors to solicit their business because it's such an open and shut case!

The fact that it's in the contract doesn't necessarily mean it's legal or even uncontestable. I'm not sure why you seem to think it's outrageous that they just might have grounds to challenge it.

[gizmojumpjet]

It's a right to work state; they are at-will employees. bggf; They didn't get fired for their race, religion, etc., so I think the odds of them having grounds to challenge their termination due to failure to comply with company policies is slim-to-fucking-none. As the article mentions, this isn't the first time Wal-Mart has fired employees for this sort of thing, do you honestly thing they don't have their ducks in a row when it comes to these sorts of terminations?

You might not like what Wal-Mart did, I don't myself, but that doesn't mean these guys get big fat settlements. I get sick of seeing the "hurf hurf they gon' sue that company inna da groun'!" mentality exhibited by Akhlut's post when there's really no indication that these guys are owed any sort of compensation.

Yes, Wal-Mart's being a dick. No, that's not illegal.

[Teebs]

Assuming the facts are as stated isn't this just another example of a generally good policy becoming bad when no exceptions are allowed? It reminds me of the cases with schools suspending pupils for having butter knives with them.

I think it's entirely commendable for an employer to tell its staff that not only are they not expected to intervene in armed robberies, they're actively forbidden from doing so, but as with many policies of this type you have to allow for exceptions and it's blind enforcement of rules without any flexibility that can cause problems.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

These guys were probably fucked from the moment they noticed the guy stealing. When I got robbed at work a couple of years ago I followed the company policy to the letter and still got fired. Granted I didn't work for Wal-Mart, but the policy was similar.

[General Zod]

As the article mentions, this isn't the first time Wal-Mart has fired employees for this sort of thing, do you honestly thing they don't have their ducks in a row when it comes to these sorts of terminations?

You put too much faith in mega-corp lawyers. Do you honestly think Walmart is going to admit to any weaknesses if there's the slightest chance they could have to deal with a lawsuit?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

As the article mentions, this isn't the first time Wal-Mart has fired employees for this sort of thing, do you honestly thing they don't have their ducks in a row when it comes to these sorts of terminations?

You put too much faith in mega-corp lawyers. Do you honestly think Walmart is going to admit to any weaknesses if there's the slightest chance they could have to deal with a lawsuit?

As much as it makes my skin crawl to do so, I agree with gizmojumpjet. The ex-employees could sue, but the odds of a successful outcome are almost zero. The judge is likely to consider the following questions:

1) Were the employees notified of Wal-Mart's policies at the time of hiring? Certainly, yes.
2) Are these policies clearly delineated and readily accessible? Most likely.
3) Did the employees receive training in adhering to these policies, and in the consequences of violating these policies? They were trained in asset protection, so yes; they had no excuse for not knowing the relevant policies.
4) Were the employees in violation of Wal-Mart's policies? Absolutely. They clearly state that when the guns come out, the employees' duty is to retreat and notify law enforcement.
5) Did the employees actions put people at risk, as Wal-Mart accuses? Yes. None of the Wal-Mart employees are trained in the de-escalation of a situation involving deadly force; nor are they equipped to handle a situation involving deadly force (otherwise it would not be company policy to run away and notify the police.) They were lucky their actions did not result in the wounding or killing of the gunman's hostage, in the wounding or killing of one of them, the wounding or killing of an innocent bystander on the other side of the wall from the room the confrontation took place in, or even the wounding or killing of the would-be shoplifter. All of those would cost Wal-Mart significantly more than dealing with any lawsuit these four might file.

As heart-warming as the story of the derring-do of the plucky Wal-Mart employees is, and regardless of how soulless Wal-Mart is; Wal-Mart's handling of the situation is not unreasonable.

[General Zod]

I never said they were unreasonable, but considering Kansas Castle Laws, an attorney could possibly argue that the employees had no duty to retreat once the robber had the gun pointed at them.

[Isolder74]

The Biggest problem with Walmart firing them over this was that the people fired for this incident literally had no way of following the policy being in a small room and backed against the door. They Literally had NO WHERE to retreat to.

[General Zod]

The Biggest problem with Walmart firing them over this was that the people fired for this incident literally had no way of following the policy being in a small room and backed against the door. They Literally had NO WHERE to retreat to.

Hence why a lawyer could argue against Walmart using Castle Laws.

[jcow79]

In regards to wrongful termination in Utah, the judge likely wouldn't even look to see if a policy violation was good enough reason for them to fire you. They would look at the employment terms to see if there was any implied contract saying you can't be fired without X, Y, Z steps occurring first, and I'll bet there aren't any. As a matter of fact I'll bet all over the paper work it says that Wal-Mart reserves the right to terminate your employment for any reason at any time as long as those reasons don't violate federal or state discrimination laws (i.e., race, gender, etc.) Beyond that it doesn't matter if a policy was violated or not. So unless they guys were working under a specific contract that was breached, typical Utah employment terms say you can be fired for any reason, even unfair ones. That's "At-will" employment states, for ya.

[Cecelia5578]

The Biggest problem with Walmart firing them over this was that the people fired for this incident literally had no way of following the policy being in a small room and backed against the door. They Literally had NO WHERE to retreat to.

Walmart's response would probably be along the lines of: the guy just wanted to leave, and wasn't acting like he wanted to just gun people down randomly.Somehow, someway their lawyers will argue that that is different than a random guy walking into a walmart and just opening fire. In other words, just getting out of the way and letting the guy go should've been the course of action, regardless of his brandishing a gun.

I don't necessarily agree, but just playing devils advo.

[Sela]

What I don't get is the PR angle of it. I'd think WalMart would - since nobody got hurt - simply neglect to fire these people. That would seem the most logical course of action; sure - they broke the policy, but they did so in a way that ended up bringing about the greatest good to the greatest number and didn't break the law doing it. The police have no problem with it, etc.

Normally when you uphold policy regardless it's to prevent a repeat incident. But surely they don't think this story would inspire others to do the same? And *if* it does, again it's not the customers but the employees whose lives would be at risk!

Now if one of the employees had gotten hurt or shot in the process of taking down this thug, then I can see why WalMart would need to bring up this policy to cover their ass. But in a situation like this where nothing went wrong . . . what's the harm? It'd be like ticketing a motorist for momentarily crossing the double-yellow line in order to avoid killing a blind kid!

[Kyler]

I work as banker, and the bank I work for has a very similar policy to that of Walmarts. Our operations manager has told me personally while commendable that someone would try to stop a bank robber, if they did so he would absolutely fire them. The only gray area that we have as a banker is that we don't want any robber to take a hostage from the bank. We are advised to do are our best not to be allowed to be taken from the building. Violence against the robber is not suggested by any means, but if you have no other option it is acceptable. We are reminded in security training always that money can be replaced but someones life can not.

The four employees did violate Walmart's policies, but I don't think they had any other option since they were cornered and had no where to go. It was split second decision, that if I were in their shoes I would probably would have done the same thing. I don't think they deserve to be fired, but Walmart like many other giant corporations is just covering their asses. With the massive legal department they have at their disposal, I don't think there is much of a chance of these guys winning a law suit. I think if 4 guys can garner enough public support they maybe able to get some half way decent settlement for what happened to them.