Gas Station Employee Fired for Fighting Off Robber

Hawke

Hawke

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
24
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356710,00.html

An act of bravery to defend a co-worker has cost a Minnesota gas-station attendant his job.
Mark Beverly, an overnight shift supervisor at a SuperAmerica in Roseville, Minn., was fired in March after he jumped on a masked robber who he believed was attacking a fellow employee.
SuperAmerica said he violated company policy when he came to his colleague's aid in the early morning of March 26. So instead of accolades, Beverly got the boot.
Click to expand...

I remember a 7-11 employee who also got fired for attacking the robber.

Other companies have similar policies.

Video Clip:
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S437400.shtml?cat=1
 
From what I read, he wasn't attacking a robber, he was attackng an assailant who was assaulting a fellow employee Another stupid decision to keep the sheeple happy :banghead:
 
It's a *****, but it's standard practice. Lots of companies including most of the national ones have policies that say "Back down. Call the police. Don't get involved." I remember a recent story where a restaurant employee was fired for stepping outside to copy the license plate from the getaway car.

The company doesn't want to open itself to any liability. If employees get into legal trouble on company time or get hurt or killed or any number of other things the firm's insurance policy is going to take a hit. And someone somewhere might decide that the deepest pockets around are liable. There's some justice to that. I've seen people do crazy stuff, criminal stuff in a couple cases, and claim that since they were representing their employer their employer was liable.

And what should employees do? If you say "Feel free to do what you think you need to do about a potential crime" you're giving people an awful lot of authority to use initiative. Initiative is good, but lots of times that's not what you're paying them to do, especially in the **** jobs that usually result in these stories.

In a way it protects the employees. If they can't point to a policy and say "That's something I'm not supposed to do" you could easily have them fired for failing to risk their lives for $7.50 an hour to protect the company from crime. Tyson locks employees into their chicken plants and chains the door. They're more than willing to film Triangle Shirtwaist Factory II: The Sequel. Do you think they or someone like them would hesitate for a minute if they thought they could force their minimum wagers to risk life and limb to protect company property?

There aren't any easy answers to this one. But I would like to see a recognition that employees have basic human rights while they're on the clock. That would include the right to act as they reasonably believe necessary to protect innocent life in an emergency.
 
"He endangered himself and her, and that’s why we have the policy," said Linda Casey, a Marathon spokeswoman. "And we have enforced it with other employees, not just with him."

"I just thought it was wrong, that's all," said Beverly, who had worked at SuperAmerica for just over a year. "You're not really trained for a robbery, and that was the first robbery I have ever been in in my life."

Capt. Rick Mathwig of the Roseville Police Department said authorities advise people not to take action when faced with a robbery.

"When you start resisting at some way shape or form, the suspect who may not have intended on using the weapon that he or she came with may use it intentionally or unintentionally when faced with a conflict," he said.
Click to expand...

In some ways the police are correct that it is EASIER to just cooperate with the robber and give them what they want. However there is NO guarantee that robber will just leave it at that. There are too many cases where a robber has used their weapon on the (unresisting) store employee to get what they want. There are many documented events where robbers take off running when they meet resistance. Yes, there are also documented events where the robber continues to fight.
With that it's fair to say that there's no knowing for sure what will happen in circumstances like this.
Hopefully Mark Beverly will be able to find a better job because of his heroic actions. He quite possibly saved the other employee's life.
I dunno about the CEO's of corporate giants but I want at least someone to help me out should the opportunity arise, if I should find myself on the wrong end of a gun. I'd do the same.
 
-Interesting. A friend of mine back home in New York has worked security at Target, and their policy is to let merchandise walk out the door rather than an apprehension that may lead to a lawsuit. I understand that up to a point but it seems like if no one ever gets apprehended at the store, they're probably never going to sue, (saying Security abused them or whatever,) having made it out with stolen goods, therefore loss of money to the company, perhaps an increase in price to the law-abiding consumers...even if they get arrested later by the police. There is still a loss to the company. I mean, do people have the 'right' to break the law?

-My second point with the OP, is that having all these rules in place, not just the work place, but many areas of living, does it take away or lessen our need to protect others, to do the right thing? If I was that clerk and thought someone was being assaulted, I would've stepped in as well, policy be damned. Losing a job is worth the price of keeping another from harm. Kinda silly, but that's the world we live in. Can't always wait for the authorities when you're in the moment.

-Good thread;-)

Andrew
 
Welcome to the wonderful world of lawyers, corporations, and self defense (or in this case, defense of a third party.)

The corporation is in the business of business and thus individual workers are expendable. The corporation would not be sued if a worker is robbed or assaulted by another, but it will be sued if one of it's members injures another (the attacker can definalty try to sue for injuries.)

Wal-Mart gets sued hundreds of times each year for all kinds of BS. Don't blame to corporations so much. Lawyers and the courts have made it so easy to sue for such activity.

Do I think the corporations are right? No. Wish they had the balls to back the employee up, but the officers of the corporation are at the beck-n-call of the CEO, and the CEO is at the beck-n-call of the stockholders. Untill the stockholders say, 'hang the expense' and backup anyone who does what the man did in the above example, then it will continue.

Piza-hut, Wal-mart, Albertsons, McDonalds, etc... all have policies against such activity. Just to cover the corporation, they will have to fire those that disobey policy. And the policy is to do nothing.

Deaf
 
Deaf Smith said:
Welcome to the wonderful world of lawyers, corporations, and self defense (or in this case, defense of a third party.)

The corporation is in the business of business and thus individual workers are expendable. The corporation would not be sued if a worker is robbed or assaulted by another, but it will be sued if one of it's members injures another (the attacker can definalty try to sue for injuries.)

Wal-Mart gets sued hundreds of times each year for all kinds of BS. Don't blame to corporations so much. Lawyers and the courts have made it so easy to sue for such activity.

Do I think the corporations are right? No. Wish they had the balls to back the employee up, but the officers of the corporation are at the beck-n-call of the CEO, and the CEO is at the beck-n-call of the stockholders. Untill the stockholders say, 'hang the expense' and backup anyone who does what the man did in the above example, then it will continue.

Piza-hut, Wal-mart, Albertsons, McDonalds, etc... all have policies against such activity. Just to cover the corporation, they will have to fire those that disobey policy. And the policy is to do nothing.

Deaf
Click to expand...

Buncha ********** the lot of 'em.
 
It is a messed-up situation. That sucks for the guy who lost his job, but I'm almost certain he can find something else out there.

Tellner's right. Big companies don't want to extend their liability in any way. That includes the employees. It just costs too much in terms of potential legal, hospital or compensatory fees. They would rather lost the $100 in the drawer than lost millions in a liability lawsuit.

The same thing happened in St. Louis when a pizza delivery driver shot and killed an alleged robber, stating that he thought the assailants were also armed. Domino's pizza had a policy against drivers carrying firearms while on duty, but the driver felt that his right to bear arms and his CCW license superseded the company's policy.

After the incident, he also lost his job.

Sucks, but again, I'm pretty sure he found another job.
 
It's the only reasonable policy for the store, but in this case it seems like the employee just reacted in an emergency situation. A bit of reasonableness might have been appropriate here for this gutsy act.
 
arnisador said:
A bit of reasonableness might have been appropriate here for this gutsy act.
Click to expand...
Why should they be reasonable for a guy who makes approximately 200% LESS money than they do and might've cost them millions in litigation? The guy isn't even on their level. He's just a number and an easily replaceable number at that.
 
I think it's crap. Some one is getting the living hell beat of them and you get fired for coming to the guys aid. Corporate American can kiss both sides of my back end three ways to Sunday.
 
arnisador said:
It's the only reasonable policy for the store, but in this case it seems like the employee just reacted in an emergency situation. A bit of reasonableness might have been appropriate here for this gutsy act.
Click to expand...

If they had any honor, they would fire the guy and have one of their other chains hire him (at a salary increase.) At least that is what I'd do.

Deaf
 
When I worked for Tops Markets back in the 80's, I had a customer threaten me with assault. It was a big verbal scene. By the time the ast. on duty showed up, the drunk was on his way out, dragged off by his wife. I asked the ast. what would have happened if the guy had taken a shot at me. He said I would have been fired for "fighting on company property." My reply was something to the effect of "then I guess I could have defended myself and knocked both him and your worthless *** out huh?" Lets just say it didn't go over that well. LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jai
I definitely think Mr. Beverly was right. He intervened because he thought a person was in danger, not just property. SuperAmerica fired someone with ethics that we can relate too.

But check this out: http://kstp.com/article/stories/s430496.shtml?cat=86

Same community, same TV news, less then 1 month apart.

It shows the the difference between small business vs. corporate big shot.

So... how can we possibly change corporate behavior? Where do you shop?
 
Hawke said:
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356710,00.html



I remember a 7-11 employee who also got fired for attacking the robber.

Other companies have similar policies.

Video Clip:
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S437400.shtml?cat=1
Click to expand...


most people who own such "stop and robs" like 711's and gas stations do not want their employees to fight for liability reasons and the fact that they have insurance to pay for the robbery's losses! besides explaining to your employees family and loved ones that he/she died for a lousy say $300 of your money would just plain suck!! even if it was $ 50,000 dollars its just not worth some ones life... now if you are that employee and are sure the dirt bag will shoot or stab you or what have you... then do your best to put him down so he never ever gets up again! ( at least in the west that is a black letter law deadly force situation... east coast has some stupid laws that way )
 
Have you guys ever seen the story about the potential robber who fell through a woman's skylight while trying to break in and sued her for his injuries?

He won!

What is the world coming to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Excellent discourse on the 'Startle Reflex'

Previous Thread

LEOs and MMA.

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top