- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Metairie Academy Employees Fired For Chasing After a Pistol Thief
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:25 pm to East Coast Band
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:25 pm to East Coast Band
quote:
This is one of the stupidest "rules" of the stupid woke movement .
This is women infecting the high level cooperate structure. Just like in education when schools came out with "zero tolerance" policies.
This post was edited on 12/29/23 at 9:26 pm
0
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:26 pm to John_V
quote:
employees are not allowed to chase or physically restrain a fleeing person suspected of theft.
Garbage.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:28 pm to John_V
quote:
know that some states have a "negligent storage" law. Idk how a business can let guns get stolen then have no repercussions if those guns are used in crimes
I'd imagine them losing a gun would have them more concerned towards the FFL than some local negligent storage BS.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:30 pm to John_V
quote:
Idk how a business can let guns get stolen then have no repercussions if those guns are used in crimes
Perhaps we have definitions for the word "let."
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:38 pm to upgrade
quote:
Winn Dixie did not have this policy in the 90’s.
Jr managers loved chasing down jr thugs who tried to shoplift a ribeye rack.
While working there around that time frame I saw one manager chase down and make a touchdown saving tackle at the door on a girl who tried to make a run for it with some stuff.
Don't think it would happen today.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:49 pm to Scuttle But
quote:
Perhaps we have definitions for the word "let."
If they can't confront someone, let alone pursue, then I'd consider that allowing it to happen
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:52 pm to John_V
If someone had a gun on your daughter would you be mad at her for not fighting and letting the criminal take her car?
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:56 pm to GreenRockTiger
Yeah this is probably what happened. A guy did this at the Alexandria academy a couple years ago. Was chased out and caught not sure if the employees got fired
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:59 pm to TankBoys32
I think likely an employee safety and insurance issue. Coverage probably won't cover injury to employees trying to interfere with shoplifter.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:00 pm to Maderan
quote:
think likely an employee safety and insurance issue. Coverage probably won't cover injury to employees trying to interfere with shoplifter.
So don't cover the injuries if they interfere with a shoplifter then. What the hell does that have to do with firing them?
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:03 pm to Joshjrn
I can understand the policy especially for a firearm theft, let the police handle it
It’s also pretty senseless to put customers in the store in harms way as well
It’s also pretty senseless to put customers in the store in harms way as well
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:05 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
how was someone able to shoplift a firearm.
1. Ask clerk to see gun
2. When clerk hands gun to user, user waits until employee is distracted and then hightails it
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:08 pm to John_V
Remember not to leave your gun in your car, and lock the doors!
And also, no one will stop people from stealing new guns straight out of the store.
And also, no one will stop people from stealing new guns straight out of the store.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:11 pm to John_V
Don’t understand why you have show guns with the firing pin.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:16 pm to Maderan
Workers Comp doesn’t work that way.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:21 pm to Scuttle But
quote:
don't cover the injuries if they interfere with a shoplifter then. What the hell does that have to do with firing them?
The company has some liability when the employee is on the clock. They have to show zero tolerance to have a chance in future litigation.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:25 pm to East Coast Band
quote:
This is one of the stupidest "rules" of the stupid woke movement
It has nothing to do with woke. If they don’t do this, and an employee gets hurt chasing a thief, they can be sued to smithereens. The tort law is stupid, but the companies are responding rationally.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:26 pm to John_V
I thought something happened at the school like teachers fired for protecting kids
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:27 pm to Maderan
quote:
I think likely an employee safety and insurance issue. Coverage probably won't cover injury to employees trying to interfere with shoplifter.
Or the shoplifter gets injured and files a lawsuit… especially unlawful detainment if a store employee holds them (why other stores have cops patrolling)
This post was edited on 12/29/23 at 10:30 pm
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:40 pm to John_V
From a Risk Management standpoint they don’t want employees getting hurt and filing a Workers Comp claim or hurting the perp in a scuffle and facing a lawsuit. Or both. Letting the item and wholesale cost leave the store without incident is cheaper than paying legal fees and a settlement /judgment.
But it rewards the thief and punishes the conscientious employee trying to protect their employer. Blame the plaintiff lawyers bc I’m sure these zero tolerance rules evolved from lawsuit payouts.
But it rewards the thief and punishes the conscientious employee trying to protect their employer. Blame the plaintiff lawyers bc I’m sure these zero tolerance rules evolved from lawsuit payouts.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News