Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: RoadKingLarry on July 11, 2018, 10:40:29 PM
-
Assistant manager stops a man trying to steal a gun and ammunition from Academy Sports.
Academy Sports fires the Assistant manager for violating company policy.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/11/academy-sports-manager-fired-weeks-after-intercepting-gun-thief-suspect-in-florida-store-lawyer-says.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/11/academy-sports-manager-fired-weeks-after-intercepting-gun-thief-suspect-in-florida-store-lawyer-says.html)
Never another *expletive deleted*ing dime Academy.
-
Yeah. Their faceplace page is starting to smoke.
Brad
-
Makes me wonder how it is that some people get to be upper management level.
Anyhow, I hope nobody posts "the customer is always right."
What are the usual retail rules about a firearm and its ammunition being on the counter at the same time?
-
Well, now we know that if we want to steal anything (including guns) from Academy Sports we can take our time and just stroll out the door, because the employees aren't allowed to touch us.
Good to know.
-
What's this place called? Starbucks Sports?
I hope all these retail managers across the country are getting the message: brown people don't have to follow the rules.
-
Makes me wonder how it is that some people get to be management level.
Anyhow, I hope nobody posts "the customer is always right."
What are the usual retail rules about a firearm and its ammunition being on the counter at the same time?
In most stores the ammo is out on the shelves, not behind the counter. So if Ditntdue Nuffin boosted the ammo (perhaps into the stolen backpack) before asking to see the gun, then that may be how he got both.
-
Maybe they ought to institute calf-roping training for store personnel. Yee. Haw.
Larnin' how:
https://youtu.be/P12CJ4Zu7LM (0:28)
Trouble is, it's hard to conceal-carry a lariat.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/dcmovies/images/6/60/Lynda_carter-wonder-woman-golden-lasso1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110908173500)
-
That’s standard retail practice. Anybody who has dealt with regional and corporate level management will tell you of the insanity and lack of common sense.
-
I can almost understand the "let them go" policy if you're talking about a basketball or an item of clothing.
But in a case like this where the item(s) being stolen can be used in dangerous manner then stopping them from leaving should be the way to go.
How would their management feel if the perp had gone out to the parking lot, loaded up then came back and shot a few customers and employees?
Sure, we've e,experienced a mass murder but damn it, we followed company policy.
-
Their CEO, Ken Hicks, just came on board in May. He's a West Point grad and native Texan. It'll be interesting to see how he reacts since he probably wasn't aware of any of this until it hit Fox News.
Brad
-
When you are around 10 years old and see an outdoor display of water melons on a slanted display case at the local grocery. You are poor, but you are drooling for a water melon. Advice: 1. Do not swipe the melon from the bottom of the display case. 2. When running from the store owner, stop and lay the melon down, then resume running. 3. Do not keep it in your arms, it will slow you waaayyy down. 4. Do not ask me how I know this.
-
I think that sort of legal risk aversion is common. I assume they are worried about being stuck with the cost of employee injury or liability for a customer injury (not the criminal). If they wanted to do this without being stupid, they should have congratulated the employee, maybe given them a small raise, then retrain everyone on the policies while quietly telling the guy they think he screwed up. Not the right thing to do, but better for public relations.
Given other things Academy has done in recent years, I get the impression they are a bunch of liberals who realize most of their stores are in the Southeastern US.
-
I can almost understand the "let them go" policy if you're talking about a basketball or an item of clothing.
But in a case like this where the item(s) being stolen can be used in dangerous manner then stopping them from leaving should be the way to go.
How would their management feel if the perp had gone out to the parking lot, loaded up then came back and shot a few customers and employees?
Sure, we've e,experienced a mass murder but damn it, we followed company policy.
I agree with you on this part. For most things (even ammo), the merchandise is just stuff and can be replaced. For firearms, there is a little more to it. You can't predict if the criminal wants to just sell it or if they will want to use it. Management probably thinks the legal liability for the criminal use of the gun is less than the liability for an injured employee or customer. They are likely right about that.
-
Wow... I though the vitriol after some of the other recent corporate bonehead moves was serious. This is orders of magnitude more intense. Even the screaming hippy-libs here are pissed at what happened. Looks like Academy is getting universally rectal-sexed in pretty much every social media and news feed extant, even those traditionally not associated with firearms or conservative issues.
Good.
Brad
-
I think even the libbies would like to see a gun being prevented from being stolen, that's why they're against Academy's policy.
-
I can almost understand the "let them go" policy if you're talking about a basketball or an item of clothing.
But in a case like this where the item(s) being stolen can be used in dangerous manner then stopping them from leaving should be the way to go.
How would their management feel if the perp had gone out to the parking lot, loaded up then came back and shot a few customers and employees?
Sure, we've e,experienced a mass murder but damn it, we followed company policy.
^^^ This. In this case, the guy wasn't stealing a Twinkie or a wristwatch.
-
Maybe they ought to institute calf-roping training for store personnel. Yee. Haw.
You mean like this?
(https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/06/10/5721e248-c943-4d42-a18c-c66d1346d23a/resize/620x/dccc0a50a29b4b81c51693ddd5b0826f/horselasso-620lasso91d612e6-4be8-4795-bec4-7e1992b5e331.jpg)
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/us/suspect-lassoed-in-parking-lot-irpt/index.html
-
Oh. I hadn't realize 230RN actually had writing in that post. I guess I was distracted.
-
You mean like this?
(https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/06/10/5721e248-c943-4d42-a18c-c66d1346d23a/resize/620x/dccc0a50a29b4b81c51693ddd5b0826f/horselasso-620lasso91d612e6-4be8-4795-bec4-7e1992b5e331.jpg)
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/us/suspect-lassoed-in-parking-lot-irpt/index.html
I'm so ashamed that Texas has yet to top this.
-
I'm so ashamed that Texas has yet to top this anytime recently.
FTFY
I'm fairly certain Texas (and most of the West) has topped this, just not in the modern era.
-
Yeah, and with vertical lassos, too.
-
Well, well, well... it seems the roar was heard loud and clear.
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/783864002
Short version, he's been rehired.
Makes you wonder what other calls were made that day, possibly to a certain HR person, and possibly about considering the potential PR effects of blind adherence to policy in the face of certain disaster.
Corporate HR policy types don't seem to understand that Operating Policy & Procedure is for everyday operational issues. They somehow can't comprehend that atypical issues often require atypical responses, some of which will run counter to stated procedure. That's why every single policy manual I've ever seen contains a phrase something along the lines of "<Org Name> reserves the right to revise, restate, or apply this operating policy as needed for situations, conditions, or other occurrances outside normal operational parameters."
Brad
-
Well, well, well... it seems the roar was heard loud and clear.
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/783864002
Short version, he's been rehired.
Howard Schultz sheds a single tear.
-
Corporate HR policy types don't seem to understand that Operating Policy & Procedure is for everyday operational issues. They somehow can't comprehend that atypical issues often require atypical responses, some of which will run counter to stated procedure. That's why every single policy manual I've ever seen contains a phrase something along the lines of "<Org Name> reserves the right to revise, restate, or apply this operating policy as needed for situations, conditions, or other occurrances outside normal operational parameters."
Brad
Having been through a certain amount of HR training and reading examples of things done right and wrong by HR depts. I came to realize, that HR depts. are going to operate inexorably towards the goal of defending the entity they work for by enforcing as strictly as possible company policy regardless of other consequences.
It wasn't until recently that the phrase "stay in your lane" became current and that, it dawned on me, is a perfect way to say what and how HR enforces policy. This manager, while brave and committed, did not stay in his lane and thus had to go. There are plenty of ways to leave your lane and HR will sanction you for any one of them. And shouldn't this be the default position for HR?
For the HR types there was nothing to think about. Policy comes before PR considerations, and that's even if they considered the PR implications which they probably didn't. And really, do they need to consider PR issues?
I don't blame the HR folks for this, in their view they were protecting the entity, which is their first duty. They are not the PR people, they are not in the C-suite, they're not the legal team, they're worker bees that do not have a lot of discretion in how they operate.
Imagine what could have happened if the manager hadn't been fired and the company lawyers demanded to know why this insurance liability was still working for the company and exposing them to potential legal problems.
Some HR person(s) might have lost their job(s). For failing to do their job. It would have been a totally justified termination. And this would have happened totally out of the public eye and there would have been no outrage to get them rehired.
It's not fair to the HR folks to expect them to consider every potential issue that might come up in making personnel decisions. There are way too many variables. As long as the process conformed to both employment law and company policy, the HR people are blameless.
I say that this turned out right. The manager did what he thought was right, HR did their job, and the C-suite folks did theirs by overruling HR.
The process could have been faster and thus less damaging to company PR, but live and learn.
-
I think the manager was going to be fired no matter what. Either for allowing the gun to be stolen, or for intervening.
-
Having been through a certain amount of HR training and reading examples of things done right and wrong by HR depts. I came to realize, that HR depts. are going to operate inexorably towards the goal of defending the entity they work for by enforcing as strictly as possible company policy regardless of other consequences.
It wasn't until recently that the phrase "stay in your lane" became current and that, it dawned on me, is a perfect way to say what and how HR enforces policy. This manager, while brave and committed, did not stay in his lane and thus had to go. There are plenty of ways to leave your lane and HR will sanction you for any one of them. And shouldn't this be the default position for HR?
For the HR types there was nothing to think about. Policy comes before PR considerations, and that's even if they considered the PR implications which they probably didn't. And really, do they need to consider PR issues?
I don't blame the HR folks for this, in their view they were protecting the entity, which is their first duty. They are not the PR people, they are not in the C-suite, they're not the legal team, they're worker bees that do not have a lot of discretion in how they operate.
Imagine what could have happened if the manager hadn't been fired and the company lawyers demanded to know why this insurance liability was still working for the company and exposing them to potential legal problems.
Some HR person(s) might have lost their job(s). For failing to do their job. It would have been a totally justified termination. And this would have happened totally out of the public eye and there would have been no outrage to get them rehired.
It's not fair to the HR folks to expect them to consider every potential issue that might come up in making personnel decisions. There are way too many variables. As long as the process conformed to both employment law and company policy, the HR people are blameless.
I say that this turned out right. The manager did what he thought was right, HR did their job, and the C-suite folks did theirs by overruling HR.
The process could have been faster and thus less damaging to company PR, but live and learn.
What happened to Cooling-off Periods or suspension pending investigation.. Either of which could have and in fact should have been used. Yes, there are times when instant termination is appropriate (theft comes to mind), but in most cases taking time to review and reflect before pulling the trigger can also serve to avoid lawyers, or at least diminish their impact.
-
I suppose you could look at it as if he were preventing the customer from committing a federal crime...
"Sir, sir! Come back! You have to fill out a Form 4473 for this transfer! Sir!"
-
I suppose you could look at it as if he were preventing the customer from committing a federal crime...
"Sir, sir! Come back! You have to fill out a Form 4473 for this transfer! Sir!"
They say when he was fired, he went to work for Chick-Fil-A.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE47Fpw52v8
-
From the Fox News link, by Elizabeth Zwirz
A representative for Academy Sports did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment. But company spokeswoman Elise Hasbrook told [The Tallahassee] Democrat that Academy’s treatment of the former employee’s conduct, as well as his eventual firing, complied with company policy.
“While the incident ended without injury, actions inconsistent with corporate policies were taken,” she told the outlet. “We addressed the matter with the local store and individuals involved.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/11/academy-sports-manager-fired-weeks-after-intercepting-gun-thief-suspect-in-florida-store-lawyer-says.html
Seems to be a well-written article by Ms. Zwirz.
And Mr. Dindoo Nuthin was charged with three counts of grand theft of a firearm. There was a .45, a .380, and apparently a .40 involved.
Three guns...
Were I were the store clerk and even a shadow of my former middle aged trim, I'd have figured that my duty to society at large far outweighed my loyalty to some company policy.
Terry
-
Having been through a certain amount of HR training and reading examples of things done right and wrong by HR depts. I came to realize, that HR depts. are going to operate inexorably towards the goal of defending the entity they work for by enforcing as strictly as possible company policy regardless of other consequences.
It wasn't until recently that the phrase "stay in your lane" became current and that, it dawned on me, is a perfect way to say what and how HR enforces policy. This manager, while brave and committed, did not stay in his lane and thus had to go. There are plenty of ways to leave your lane and HR will sanction you for any one of them. And shouldn't this be the default position for HR?
For the HR types there was nothing to think about. Policy comes before PR considerations, and that's even if they considered the PR implications which they probably didn't. And really, do they need to consider PR issues?
I don't blame the HR folks for this, in their view they were protecting the entity, which is their first duty. They are not the PR people, they are not in the C-suite, they're not the legal team, they're worker bees that do not have a lot of discretion in how they operate.
Imagine what could have happened if the manager hadn't been fired and the company lawyers demanded to know why this insurance liability was still working for the company and exposing them to potential legal problems.
Some HR person(s) might have lost their job(s). For failing to do their job. It would have been a totally justified termination. And this would have happened totally out of the public eye and there would have been no outrage to get them rehired.
It's not fair to the HR folks to expect them to consider every potential issue that might come up in making personnel decisions. There are way too many variables. As long as the process conformed to both employment law and company policy, the HR people are blameless.
I say that this turned out right. The manager did what he thought was right, HR did their job, and the C-suite folks did theirs by overruling HR.
The process could have been faster and thus less damaging to company PR, but live and learn.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." ~~Ralph Waldo Emerson, SELF RELIANCE.
-
Having been through a certain amount of HR training and reading examples of things done right and wrong by HR depts. I came to realize, that HR depts. are going to operate inexorably towards the goal of defending the entity they work for by enforcing as strictly as possible company policy regardless of other consequences.
It wasn't until recently that the phrase "stay in your lane" became current and that, it dawned on me, is a perfect way to say what and how HR enforces policy. This manager, while brave and committed, did not stay in his lane and thus had to go. There are plenty of ways to leave your lane and HR will sanction you for any one of them. And shouldn't this be the default position for HR?
For the HR types there was nothing to think about. Policy comes before PR considerations, and that's even if they considered the PR implications which they probably didn't. And really, do they need to consider PR issues?
I don't blame the HR folks for this, in their view they were protecting the entity, which is their first duty. They are not the PR people, they are not in the C-suite, they're not the legal team, they're worker bees that do not have a lot of discretion in how they operate.
Imagine what could have happened if the manager hadn't been fired and the company lawyers demanded to know why this insurance liability was still working for the company and exposing them to potential legal problems.
Some HR person(s) might have lost their job(s). For failing to do their job. It would have been a totally justified termination. And this would have happened totally out of the public eye and there would have been no outrage to get them rehired.
It's not fair to the HR folks to expect them to consider every potential issue that might come up in making personnel decisions. There are way too many variables. As long as the process conformed to both employment law and company policy, the HR people are blameless.
I say that this turned out right. The manager did what he thought was right, HR did their job, and the C-suite folks did theirs by overruling HR.
The process could have been faster and thus less damaging to company PR, but live and learn.
Wrote adherence to policy for policy's sake isn't a position I'm prepared to accept. Using that logic the Germans who herded millions of Jews into gas chambers are okay because they were "following corporate policy". It's an extreme example but applicable nonetheless.
Brad
-
Wrote adherence to policy for policy's sake isn't a position I'm prepared to accept. Using that logic the Germans who herded millions of Jews into gas chambers are okay because they were "following corporate policy". It's an extreme example but applicable nonetheless.
Brad
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmemecrunch.com%2Fmeme%2FLU1N%2Fwell-that-escalated-quickly%2Fimage.jpg%3Fw%3D555%26amp%3Bc%3D1&hash=fa0cd52add31e10093e4bf54c4843fe9b92d73b7)
-
Having been through a certain amount of HR training and reading examples of things done right and wrong by HR depts. I came to realize, that HR depts. are going to operate inexorably towards the goal of defending the entity they work for by enforcing as strictly as possible company policy regardless of other consequences.
It wasn't until recently that the phrase "stay in your lane" became current and that, it dawned on me, is a perfect way to say what and how HR enforces policy. This manager, while brave and committed, did not stay in his lane and thus had to go. There are plenty of ways to leave your lane and HR will sanction you for any one of them. And shouldn't this be the default position for HR?
For the HR types there was nothing to think about. Policy comes before PR considerations, and that's even if they considered the PR implications which they probably didn't. And really, do they need to consider PR issues?
I don't blame the HR folks for this, in their view they were protecting the entity, which is their first duty. They are not the PR people, they are not in the C-suite, they're not the legal team, they're worker bees that do not have a lot of discretion in how they operate.
Imagine what could have happened if the manager hadn't been fired and the company lawyers demanded to know why this insurance liability was still working for the company and exposing them to potential legal problems.
Some HR person(s) might have lost their job(s). For failing to do their job. It would have been a totally justified termination. And this would have happened totally out of the public eye and there would have been no outrage to get them rehired.
It's not fair to the HR folks to expect them to consider every potential issue that might come up in making personnel decisions. There are way too many variables. As long as the process conformed to both employment law and company policy, the HR people are blameless.
I say that this turned out right. The manager did what he thought was right, HR did their job, and the C-suite folks did theirs by overruling HR.
The process could have been faster and thus less damaging to company PR, but live and learn.
All the backlash would imply that they didn't protect the entity.
-
All the backlash would imply that they didn't protect the entity.
Maybe the policies did protect Academy, maybe they didn't. This is some internet backlash, which while loud tends to not actually cost all that much money. We don't know what the rate of "urban Lottery" lawsuits when a store employee goes hands on with a Didindonuffin is, nor the average settlement and billable hours to lawyers. I bet the Executives and HR flunkies DO have those numbers though.
I suspect that, in aggregate, this policy is still in the black for Academy.
-
This is some internet backlash, which while loud tends to not actually cost all that much money.
Depends; it doesn't take many people thinking "I'd like another $800 pistol, and I think I'll get from anywhere but Academy" to make a pretty big dent for a store where their bread and butter is t shirts and sneakers.
-
Some of those "sneakers" cost more than a lot of firearms ...
-
From what I saw, most of the outrage was from the "t-shirt and sneaker" (i.e. high profit margin) crowd. Plus, it's only a couple of weeks until school supply season, much of which is driven by the same crowd.
Brad