Pa. cop sues Wal-Mart over termination for carrying gun on duty

"While in uniform and on-duty, Michael Zuby said he stopped by the Wal-Mart store where he was employed to grab some lunch. Zuby, who worked as security at the store, was told by his boss he had to take his gun out of the store."

I don't care what the other circumstances are, telling an on-duty cop in uniform that he has to take his gun away is just brain-dead stupid.

First this is stupid on Wal-Mart's part. It is interesting that on most Wal-Mart properties, that non-employee customers can carry concealed or open carry as the case may be in a number of locations, while an employee off schedule is not allowed to. I suppose that the employee would not be able to purchase a firearm from Wal-Mart, that's akin to saying you can work here but you can not shop here.

This is an interesting example of media sources selectively editing an original news story to create a different impression. You have to click on the link in the article, and then the link in that article, to get to the original report. The story posted left out this key paragraph:

"Wal-Mart policy bans employees from carrying weapons of any kind while on company property, but that was not the issue here, said Randy Hargrove, a spokesman for the company.
The conflict of interest of Officer Zuby serving as both a police officer and a store security guard in his police jurisdiction concerned the company, Mr. Hargrove said."

This makes more sense. I couldn't understand why the store said they would give the officer a different position at the same store, as that doesn't address the issue. But a potential conflict of interest does. For example, most retail store security employees are told not to fight or use physical force to detain a shoplifter out of a fear of lawsuits over injuries. A police officer on duty has legal protections that a security guard does not for things done while working. So what happens if an off duty cop observes a crime? Does he follow store policy or department policy in his response?

The posted article, by leaving out that key paragraph, manipulates the facts to make it seem like this was only about carrying the gun, when it wasn't.