Autozone.....Really..??

Jim Shooz · Dec 9, 2012

So could Mr McLean now sue AZ for not providing adequate security to prevent someone coming in and robbing the place ?? Or is that a whole new can of worms

wdchyd · Dec 9, 2012

Maybe they could provide for an armored car service......(but that would cost money)

MossRoad · Dec 9, 2012

Mr. McLean broke a known employer policy and lost his job because of that. He has the right to quit his job any time he chooses if he does not agree with any of his employer's policies. What legal ramifications would AutoZone have faced if Mr. McLean would have fired a shot that injured another employee, customer, or passerby on the street? In today's litigious society, I really cannot fault any company for having such a policy in place. And if they do not follow through with punishment for violating that policy, they are opening themselves up for future legal problems if the situation occurs again at any of their over 4000 stores with any of their over 65,000 employees.

I can pretty much guarantee that had any one had a family member shot in the crossfire that could have occurred, they would have named AutoZone in their inevitable lawsuit.

Yes, it is too bad that Mr. McLean lost his job doing a good and noble deed. And he showed incredible restraint and good judgement in not firing his weapon. But I cannot find any fault with his employer covering its assets legally.

MossRoad · Dec 9, 2012

Jim Shooz said:
So could Mr McLean now sue AZ for not providing adequate security to prevent someone coming in and robbing the place ?? Or is that a whole new can of worms

That's a good question. There is currently a case in Benton Harbor, Michigan, where a pharmacist working in a drug store pulled out his own weapon and defended himself when a robber started shooting in the store. The pharmacist lost his job. He is now suing his ex employer. Google "pharmacist sues gun walgreens" and read and watch the surveillance video.

Bird · Dec 9, 2012

I can pretty much guarantee that had any one had a family member shot in the crossfire that could have occurred, they would have named AutoZone in their inevitable lawsuit.

Yes, it is too bad that Mr. McLean lost his job doing a good and noble deed. And he showed incredible restraint and good judgement in not firing his weapon. But I cannot find any fault with his employer covering its assets legally.

Yes, had someone been shot, there might have been a lawsuit, but the fact is that no one was shot. If Mr. McLean had followed company policy and his manager had been shot, would he have had a hard time living with himself knowing that he probably had the ability to prevent it? We can always play the "IF" game, but instead we need to make decisions on the facts, not the "IF".

Hard and fast rules and "zero tolerance" policies are seldom good anywhere, in my opinion. They start with the assumption that their employees are too stupid to use good judgment. Should we have zero tolerance in our laws? Suppose everyone caught doing one mph over the speed limit is fined? Everyone who is one day late with a house payment has his house foreclosed? But you can have zero tolerance without severe penalties. As jinman said, they could have suspended McLean for a short period of time for a lessor penalty. So . . . in my humble opinion, the person who fired McLean is the one who is stupid and should be fired.

k0ua · Dec 9, 2012

Bird said:
Yes, had someone been shot, there might have been a lawsuit, but the fact is that no one was shot. If Mr. McLean had followed company policy and his manager had been shot, would he have had a hard time living with himself knowing that he probably had the ability to prevent it? We can always play the "IF" game, but instead we need to make decisions on the facts, not the "IF".

Hard and fast rules and "zero tolerance" policies are seldom good anywhere, in my opinion. They start with the assumption that their employees are too stupid to use good judgment. Should we have zero tolerance in our laws? Suppose everyone caught doing one mph over the speed limit is fined? Everyone who is one day late with a house payment has his house foreclosed? But you can have zero tolerance without severe penalties. As jinman said, they could have suspended McLean for a short period of time for a lessor penalty. So . . . in my humble opinion, the person who fired McLean is the one who is stupid and should be fired.

Yep:thumbsup:

yelbike · Dec 9, 2012

k0ua said:
Yep:thumbsup:

Both James and Bird said it right.

cqaigy2 · Dec 9, 2012

yelbike said:
Both James and Bird said it right.

They should put something like, your fired if you hurt or kill someone or if anybody sues us, kind of thing. Though im sure AZ would take a hit if any of those things happened. They have the big pockets so im gonna get rich, along with my trusty lawyer! So, unfortunately it comes down to how much do i risk from losing some of us here on TBN vs 25 million (<-- not an actual figure based on fact so sorry no link will be provided) dollar law suit.

KTurner · Dec 9, 2012

Bird said:
Hard and fast rules and "zero tolerance" policies are seldom good anywhere, in my opinion. They start with the assumption that their employees are too stupid to use good judgment. Should we have zero tolerance in our laws? Suppose everyone caught doing one mph over the speed limit is fined? Everyone who is one day late with a house payment has his house foreclosed? But you can have zero tolerance without severe penalties. As jinman said, they could have suspended McLean for a short period of time for a lessor penalty. So . . . in my humble opinion, the person who fired McLean is the one who is stupid and should be fired.

I would suggest that if everyone doing 1mph over the limit was fined, then the law would get changed very quickly. The costs of enforcement would break the local govt budgets. Other problems would grow as all resources would be tied up trying to enforce this. People have grown accustomed to being allowed to break the law all the time with no consequences. What possible good could come from having a population accustomed to being allowed to break laws? Maybe if the laws were a little more strictly enforced, we wouldn't have so many laws/lawyers/problemsingeneral to worry about? If the law isn't worthy of being strictly enforced then it should not be a law.

Keith

MossRoad · Dec 9, 2012

Bird said:
Yes, had someone been shot, there might have been a lawsuit, but the fact is that no one was shot. If Mr. McLean had followed company policy and his manager had been shot, would he have had a hard time living with himself knowing that he probably had the ability to prevent it? We can always play the "IF" game, but instead we need to make decisions on the facts, not the "IF".

Yep. I agree completely.