Indy Kroger Employee Shoots Would-be Robber in the Face!

[singlestacksig]

and what about the dead guy...did he have a gun? this has never been coonfirmed that i know of.

It does not matter, he implied force & physically grabbed someone..
the question is, was it reasonable for the shooter to think he or someone else was at risk of harm from the robber..

 

[pathfinder317]

I hope they give him a raise and an extra weeks paid vacation, he did the right thing, he protected a person from a violent attacker.
Company policy is one thing but he broke no laws , he was legal to carry a gun, which means he went through a background check that was much more detailed than the one Kroger ran on him when they hired him.
He was smart enough to know bad things happen, and he was willing to protect himself and everyone around him and he chose to "ignore" one small policy , but one small detail to look at is , Kroger policy is made in Ohio, and up until recently Ohio did not have LTCH .

I guess the bottom line here is he was willing to put his belief in a firearm above his company policy, in other words he valued his life and the lives of others working for him more than his job

So how many of you are willing to stand up for your rights like this young man did ?
He didn't surrender his 2nd amendment rights when he walked through the door and clocked in , and because of this one female co-worker is alive and well the company retained all of their cash and all the customers and all of the rest of the employees are safe. I give the guy a huge pat on the back and say job well done.

 

[bwframe]

Garrison is talkin' guns in the workplace on WIBC now.
Indy's News Center - 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Garrison is talkin' guns in the workplace on WIBC now.
Indy's News Center - 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis

OH NO, I like the guy and his show but he needs to keep guns on the list of stuff he shouldn't talk about.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Like an armed security gaurd, I've seen many marshes with them

The problem with an armed guard standing outside is the same as with having no one armed at all; by the time the guard can react, the shooting has already begun - no matter what else happens. Much better that potential robbers be uncertain exactly WHO might be armed when they attempt to rob a store.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

OH NO, I like the guy and his show but he needs to keep guns on the list of stuff he shouldn't talk about.

I'm curious. What is it that you don't like about Garrison discussing the rights of armed citizens to self-protection, from the perspective of a lawyer and a citizen? I certainly didn't hear anything crazy from anyone who commented; in fact, I read more crazy talk about RTKB on INGO than I've heard on his program. So, is there something in particular that offends you or do you just not like talk radio discussions of the Second Amendment?

 

[bwframe]

I'm curious. What is it that you don't like about Garrison discussing the rights of armed citizens to self-protection, from the perspective of a lawyer and a citizen? I certainly didn't hear anything crazy from anyone who commented; in fact, I read more crazy talk about RTKB on INGO than I've heard on his program. So, is there something in particular that offends you or do you just not like talk radio discussions of the Second Amendment?

Garrison, while Second Amendment friendly, isn't always the most informed on gun issues. We'll take him, he's our guy, also the only local guy talkin' local politics. However, he could and maybe should be more on top of gun issues to be speaking with authority.

For example, today he spoke of the responsibility we as LTCH holders have. Then led into emotional issues regarding gunning up and checking to make sure the chamber is empty.

 

[scott08]

I hope nothing happens to him. While they did say "Hard Object" they never said weapon as far as I can tell. It would be bad news if he was using a flashlight. I would feel pretty bad killing some guy using a Gyro sandwich as a weapon.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I just watched my DVR recording of WTHR's noon news.

The coroner has ruled that the Kroger bad guy expired as a result of "multiple gunshots to the head and chest."

The Kroger manager is a true practitioner of "gun control."

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Using a fake or pretend gun in a crime is like selling fake crack to a guy that knows where you live. Just may get ya killed.

 

[DragonGunner]

I hope nothing happens to him. While they did say "Hard Object" they never said weapon as far as I can tell. It would be bad news if he was using a flashlight. I would feel pretty bad killing some guy using a Gyro sandwich as a weapon.

As opposed to waiting for him to show you his gun an shooting you first?
Or saying, "Sir can you show me if you really have a gun first."

 

[Captain Bligh]

...If they don't fire him, no employee will be obligated to follow company policy.

You raise an interesting point. It is not just about him. Consider a scenario that could take place one year from now. Our hero who has stopped a robbery in progress has not been fired. Now, a year later, a different employee comes to work with a concealed weapon in a cheap, ill-fitting nylon holster. As this employee bends over to stack the Charmin on the aisle-end, the employee feels the gun begin to fall from his holster. As the employee grabs for it, her/his finger engages the trigger and there is a negligent discharge. The round narrowly misses a customer and her five-year-old son, penetrates a two-litrer of Dr. Pepper, which makes a fine mess that soaks two additional customers. Kroger decided to fire the employee for violating its fire arms policy.

The employee is a member of a group protected under discrimination laws (gender, religion, disability, race, etc.). The employee files an EEOC complaint and a suit for wrongful termination. During the proceedings, evidence is presented that the company has not consistently applied its policy because there was this employee last year who brought his gun to work, ended up killing someone, and is still employed. The terminated employee says, "He killed someone and kept his job; all I did was destroy a bottle of Dr. Pepper which got a little kid wet and they fired me because I am <insert a protected group>." The hearing officer or Judge finds that the company has not consistently applied its policy and determines the employee has been discriminated against. Kroger's incurs damages in the six-figure range, and is on the hook to pay unemployment benefits to the discharged employee. Thereafter the mother of a 5 year-old boy sues Kroger because her son has PTSD and now wets himself every time his parents pop a champagne cork.

I don't know how many INGO folks have ever managed a large business, but my HR lawyer tells me I have to consistently apply personnel policies or risk incurring significant financial liability for subsequent events of a similar nature. The last time I wanted to make an exception for a really good employee who did <insert Policy Violation X,> my lawyer told me, "If you don't fire <insert Name>, you'll never be able to fire anyone ever again for <Policy Vilolation X>."

I think the tendency for most employers paying lawyers good money for legal advice is to take the advice they paid for. I am thinking someone at Kroger's really doesn't want to have to fire him, but there is a better than 50:50 chance that they are going to.

 

[singlestacksig]

you fire guy #2 for carelessness not for just having the gun..
lots of worker break company rules and don't get fired for it..
lots of other workers get fired for breaking rules..

 

[Captain Bligh]

you fire guy #2 for carelessness not for just having the gun..
lots of worker break company rules and don't get fired for it..
lots of other workers get fired for breaking rules..

I suspect you have never been in front of the EEOC? Sometimes it doesn't matter what is in the latter. Some folks with argue and win a discrimination charge regardless of what the letter says. If I was employee #2 I would argue that the other guy was also careless for willfully discharging a gun where others were present and could have been injured. "Geez, I was careless on accident and he was careless on purpose."

 

[singlestacksig]

I suspect you have never been in front of the EEOC? Sometimes it doesn't matter what is in the latter. Some folks with argue and win a discrimination charge regardless of what the letter says. If I was employee #2 I would argue that the other guy was also careless for willfully discharging a gun where others were present and could have been injured. "Geez, I was careless on accident and he was careless on purpose."

i personally have not.. but i have seen the problems you mention..
& people wonder why so many places just use temp agencies...

 

[Liberty Sanders]

You raise an interesting point. It is not just about him. Consider a scenario that could take place one year from now. Our hero who has stopped a robbery in progress has not been fired. Now, a year later, a different employee comes to work with a concealed weapon in a cheap, ill-fitting nylon holster. As this employee bends over to stack the Charmin on the aisle-end, the employee feels the gun begin to fall from his holster. As the employee grabs for it, her/his finger engages the trigger and there is a negligent discharge. The round narrowly misses a customer and her five-year-old son, penetrates a two-litrer of Dr. Pepper, which makes a fine mess that soaks two additional customers. Kroger decided to fire the employee for violating its fire arms policy.

The employee is a member of a group protected under discrimination laws (gender, religion, disability, race, etc.). The employee files an EEOC complaint and a suit for wrongful termination. During the proceedings, evidence is presented that the company has not consistently applied its policy because there was this employee last year who brought his gun to work, ended up killing someone, and is still employed. The terminated employee says, "He killed someone and kept his job; all I did was destroy a bottle of Dr. Pepper which got a little kid wet and they fired me because I am <insert a protected group>." The hearing officer or Judge finds that the company has not consistently applied its policy and determines the employee has been discriminated against. Kroger's incurs damages in the six-figure range, and is on the hook to pay unemployment benefits to the discharged employee. Thereafter the mother of a 5 year-old boy sues Kroger because her son has PTSD and now wets himself every time his parents pop a champagne cork.

I don't know how many INGO folks have ever managed a large business, but my HR lawyer tells me I have to consistently apply personnel policies or risk incurring significant financial liability for subsequent events of a similar nature. The last time I wanted to make an exception for a really good employee who did <insert Policy Violation X,> my lawyer told me, "If you don't fire <insert Name>, you'll never be able to fire anyone ever again for <Policy Vilolation X>."

I think the tendency for most employers paying lawyers good money for legal advice is to take the advice they paid for. I am thinking someone at Kroger's really doesn't want to have to fire him, but there is a better than 50:50 chance that they are going to.

Ahoy Cap'n,

You make excellent points. Kroger is going to bite the bullet here no matter which way they go. I think the argument can be made that they made their ultimate mistake when they took the advice of their lawyers and instituted a policy that violates natural law, namely denying their employees the universal right of self-preservation, for which they will now pay SOME price.

An excellent solution would be legislation guaranteeing the right of citizens to go armed while at work. Language could be included specifically making the employer immune from liability as a result of any act by an armed employee.

Employers would be off the hook and the entire state would be far safer.

 

[mainjet]

As I said in an earlier post - You suspend the first person for a period of time without pay. You then remind all employees that this will not be tolerated in the future. When the next person does it they are terminated.

 

[Captain Bligh]

you fire guy #2 for carelessness not for just having the gun..
lots of worker break company rules and don't get fired for it..
lots of other workers get fired for breaking rules..

And, here is the other problem: We know they have a policy prohibiting firearms in the workplace. They are less likely to have one on "carelessness." My personnel policy doesn't prohibit carelessness or accidents.

 

[Stschil]

Indiana is an "at will" state. Meaning they really don't need a reason to fire you.

I understand the scenerio. Life is chock full of what if's. And that is the crux of th problem. Everybody is more worried about the what if's that may never happen than they are about actually holding people responsible for what has and teaching their kids to be responsible so those what if's are minimized.

 

[indytechnerd]

And, here is the other problem: We know they have a policy prohibiting firearms in the workplace. They are less likely to have one on "carelessness." My personnel policy doesn't prohibit carelessness or accidents.

Maybe not, but I'll bet there's a ream of paper worth of OSHA requirements for carelessness or accidents. I'm sure you have some clause, somewhere, that deals with negligence. Do you have workplace safety training?

While getting OSHA involved is only marginally better than EEOC (maybe that should be in purple, not sure), the case can be made successfully that employee #2 who drops hammer on the soft drink was negligent. Additionally, his negligent discharge in a public place could produce criminal charges, depending on the locality.