Can You Believe This? The Utah Supreme Court says you don’t have to take a bullet for your company.

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:12:39 -0400

Sometimes a company policy has to be ignored. This is one of those situations.

SALT LAKE CITY — In a split ruling, the Utah Supreme Court sided with a group of Wal-Mart workers who were fired for exercising self-defense when confronting an armed shoplifter.

The case stems from an incident in January 2011, when six workers were fired after they fought with a shoplifter who pulled a gun on them inside the Layton Wal-Mart. The company had claimed the employees violated Wal-Mart’s policy of disengaging, withdrawing and alerting authorities.

During a hearing last year, Utah Supreme Court Justice Christine Durham bluntly asked if an employer should be able to fire somebody “for refusing to take a bullet for the company?”

http://fox13now.com/2015/09/18/the-utah-supreme-court-says-you-dont-have-to-take-a-bullet-for-your-company/

The Utah Supreme Court says you don't have to take a bullet for your company

SALT LAKE CITY --In a split ruling, the Utah Supreme Court sided with a group of Wal-Mart workers who were fired for exercising self-defense when confronting an armed shoplifter. The case stems fr...

Response by CSM Carl Cunningham made Sep 21 at 2015 9:18 PM

CSM Carl Cunningham — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:18:43 -0400

You don't have to take a bullet for your company. I was robbed in high school at the restaurant I worked at. I let them take everything. It is not worth dying over.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2015 9:18 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:18:48 -0400

It would have to depend on the situation. It seems like a mismanagement issue to me. If the policy is to disengage, withdraw, and alert authorities, it is for the sake of safety of employees. If the situation allowed for a struggle to overpower the gunman, hooray for the employees who went above and beyond to do that. That's not a fireable offense.

The Utah Supreme Court in my humble opinion is right on the money on this one.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2015 9:32 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:32:51 -0400

Well at least the Majority of the court got it right! About time the court system made a common sense ruling!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2015 9:54 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:54:37 -0400

Sounds like a good opinon by the judge. Amazing what common sense can accomplish.

Response by Cpl Clinton Britt made Sep 21 at 2015 10:13 PM

Cpl Clinton Britt — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:13:36 -0400

I don't know about you guys, but we were trained to protect and we we're trained to disarm as well. I have literally thrown unruly customers out of my restaurant before for being......disrespectful to my employee's. I can't imagine what I would do if we were being robbed. I'm usually packing anyway

Response by SGT Christopher Churilla made Sep 22 at 2015 6:27 PM

SGT Christopher Churilla — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:27:54 -0400

While I can appreciate the company's position, they should have taken into account the circumstances of the situation. The employees had no room to "disengage" from the individual, so I think their actions were entirely justified. And who's to say if he HAD been allowed to leave, that he wouldn't have shot up the store?

Response by Sgt Spencer Sikder made Sep 22 at 2015 8:12 PM

Sgt Spencer Sikder — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 20:12:04 -0400

Was money or product replaceable? I'm sure. What would have happened if someone got shot? I think in this particular case, with what little the article provides, Wal-Mart values the human life more than the commodity. (in reality, I think Wal-Mart doesn't want the long term care costs should someone get hurt) If I were shopping in the store and not involved with the take down and my wife or kids were shot.....all because some Wyatt Earps' thought that they could pull off a take down safely......

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Sep 22 at 2015 9:13 PM

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:13:11 -0400

What, you are now allowed to defend yourself against an armed assailant rather than cower in fear and hope the perpetrator decides not to execute you and your coworkers? If this occurred in the Meat Dept. then this ruling should be called the Stand Your Ground Round Doctrine...

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 21 at 2015 2:36 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:36:39 -0400

Wal-Mart acts like it knows all the situations when a threat is involved.