Oregon ‘I’m sorry. I’ll leave:’ Oregon robber surrenders hatchet to clerk with gun, video shows

[Mikej]

It would be awesome if someone could track down the clerk and give him a better job. What also sucks is that if he violated a company policy, he was fired for cause and won't likely be eligible for unemployment benefits.

Quick story....

10+/- year employee of a grocery store starts getting sweethearted buy clerks at the in-store Starbucks, over a period of a year or so. LP sits down and pours through surveillance tapes. Evidence is found, between register and video the employee had pilfered in the neighborhood of $1500.00+/- worth of fancy drinks. Employee is fired. Employee fights unemployment benefit denial. Employee, eventually, wins unemployment benefits.

Don't bet he won't get bennies. Difference is, this guy probably deserves the benefits.

 

[awshoot]

... employee had pilfered in the neighborhood of $1500.00+/- worth of fancy drinks. Employee is fired. Employee fights unemployment benefit denial. Employee, eventually, wins unemployment benefits.

Don't bet he won't get bennies. Difference is, this guy probably deserves the benefits.

There was a gun in the facts here. He's screwed.

He shouldn't be screwed in my view though. The clerk did a great job -- didn't freak out, muzzle pointed down but ready (the hatchet on the counter couldn't have been instantly used against the clerk -- the robber would have to pick it up and then wind up for an attack, so muzzle down like that was appropriate and if the robber did go through the preparatory motions of an attack, the clerk could get a shot off almost instantly). The clerk simply made it clear to the robber that this was a situation in which the robber brought a knife to a gunfight (so to speak) and then it ended without injury to anyone or even mere damage to property.

 

[Mikej]

There was a gun in the facts here. He's screwed.

He shouldn't be screwed in my view though. The clerk did a great job -- didn't freak out, muzzle pointed down but ready (the hatchet on the counter couldn't have been instantly used against the clerk -- the robber would have to pick it up and then wind up for an attack, so muzzle down like that was appropriate and if the robber did go through the preparatory motions of an attack, the clerk could get a shot off almost instantly). The clerk simply made it clear to the robber that this was a situation in which the robber brought a knife to a gunfight (so to speak) and then it ended without injury to anyone or even mere damage to property.

I suppose well never know. But I wouldn't bet one way or the other. I do know the PP employee caused no loss or harm in any way, the store employee did.

 

[awshoot]

I guess companies have this policy because the company is liable for the actions of the employee...
It's too bad there isn't some sort of exemption clause written in the books. Might make companies reconsider their stance.

Perhaps a better approach over dictating company policies more so than we already do, is to have a law that protects the worker from being denied unemployment if he or she engages in otherwise lawful self-defense and is terminated for that reason.

While the law should allow employers to exercise their rights, we should not at the same time deprive workers of the right to exercise their rights.

So in my view, Plaid Pantry should be allowed to can him if they want to. If I lived in the area I would of course exercise my rights by not spending a nickle at PP as a result of the firing. Lastly, the clerk would get what he needed to carry through to his next job without facing imminent homelessness or whatnot.

 

[eightyeight mag]

Left a message at plaid pantry corporate letting them know my feelings on there policy and that I will go out of my way to not shop there.
Glad the guy chose to protect himself and not end up like the poor girl in kelso did.

 

[Defense Minister]

An Oregon Plaid Pantry employee from a store in Oak Grove was fired after using a handgun to defend himself from a man with a hatchet attempting to rob him. According to the President of Plaid Pantry, the firing was in connection with Plaid Pantry's "No Tolerance" policy on weapons. I contacted Plaid Pantry and shared my thoughts below regarding their cowardly actions.

Hatchet-wielding thief backs down when store clerk pulls out gun - but firearm costs employee his job

"In this United States we believe that every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in that right to life is the implication of the right to defend that same life. Your Oak Grove employee not only preserved that right for himself, but also for the man who tried to rob him when he chose not to shoot while faced with a deadly threat. This shows a dedication to our American heritage and the United States Constitution, as well as a strong sense of restraint and heart for humankind. Punishing a person for that kind of selfless discipline and courage is reprehensible and beyond my ability to comprehend...

Your policy needs to change, and you should hire your employee back with a raise in pay! Until then, may gun owners unite in solidarity against patronage of Plaid Pantry."

 

[bbbass]

This story made Foxnews.com this morning: Hatchet-wielding thief backs down when store clerk pulls out gun - but firearm costs employee his job Good pic of the store clerk wielding his CCW.

Read the comments. Of course there is at least one guy defending the company policy by saying that arming clerks will get them killed.

 

[Alexx1401]

LOL

'I'm sorry. I'll leave:' Oregon robber surrenders hatchet to clerk with gun, video shows

LOVE IT!!!!

 

[Alexx1401]

Sadly this is the world lawyers have made for us as we allow it. If the store did not do what they did they would never be able to get insured. Some clerk would do something stupid with a gun. So store would be sued and lose. While back here at some Stop'N'Rob some idiot grabs case of beer and runs. CPL holder who is also moron shoots him in the butt. Scums parents of course sue the store.
The clerk had a min wage job. He can get another. If it was me? I would not have reported it as chances are they will never find the scum and if they do they will do nothing.
I have mentioned before I met a guy in passing who killed one of these clowns in the 70's. Part time weekend job at Stop'N'Rob. Scum with gun enters, he gave him cash, guy did not leave. He started looking around like he was deciding to not leave a witness. Second time he looked away the guy drew and fired, killing him. He was cleared, Corp. who owned store fired him. Local news talked to him, he said who cares. I have a real job and family. I am alive and can get another part time min wage job. Local news as far as I could tell never aired that remark from him of course.

 

[cigars]

These convenience stores are easy targets for turd burglars. Until the companies that run them can provide protection for the clerks that work there then they should not prohibit legal carry. Instead, they wait until one of their clerks gets murdered and then claim that they are not responsible.

 

[Tinman357]

I refuse to stop there. Lets get their attention.

 

[Alexx1401]

Punishing a person for that kind of selfless discipline and courage is reprehensible and beyond my ability to comprehend...

Your policy needs to change, and you should hire your employee back with a raise in pay! Until then, may gun owners unite in solidarity against patronage of Plaid Pantry."

There is another thread for this here. As I said there while this "sounds" bad many fail to see what we have made of this place. If the store allowed this they would never get insured again. Voters sit back and allow this. The store would have to pay a HUGE bond to allow the staff to be armed. If they did they would have to pay this out of profit so prices would rise. That would be great except others would not and public would spend their dollars at the lower price place. While it sounds good to say the clerk should be able to defend himself the ones saying that do not own the business. This is what lawyers and voters who allow it have made. It is not the stores fault they don't want to go under from the first time they are sued when some employee with a gun does something stupid.

 

[Caveman Jim]

There is another thread for this here. As I said there while this "sounds" bad many fail to see what we have made of this place. If the store allowed this they would never get insured again. Voters sit back and allow this. The store would have to pay a HUGE bond to allow the staff to be armed. If they did they would have to pay this out of profit so prices would rise. That would be great except others would not and public would spend their dollars at the lower price place. While it sounds good to say the clerk should be able to defend himself the ones saying that do not own the business. This is what lawyers and voters who allow it have made. It is not the stores fault they don't want to go under from the first time they are sued when some employee with a gun does something stupid.

Humans are expendable, lawsuits are not according to most businesses...

 

[Alexx1401]

Humans are expendable, lawsuits are not according to most businesses...

Sadly this is the world we live in now. If it was me working in a place like that? Hell yes I would carry. If I had to shoot? I would expect to be fired. I can find another job. I have carried all my life at work. A lot of the jobs getting caught would mean getting fired. As would of course using the gun. Again only way gun would get used is if my life depended on it. So after that they want to fire me? I am still alive to go get another job.

 

[etrain16]

Read..

View attachment 582845

Fine, just gives me a reason to avoid those sh!t hole Plaid Pantry stores.

 

[Alexx1401]

Fine, just gives me a reason to avoid those sh!t hole Plaid Pantry stores.

Yes but sadly this is going to be the same at any of these stores. Unless the only employee is the owner of the place few if any are going to allow the staff armed. It's just cost prohibitive for them.
The wonderful things lawyers have done for us.

 

[etrain16]

Yes but sadly this is going to be the same at any of these stores. Unless the only employee is the owner of the place few if any are going to allow the staff armed. It's just cost prohibitive for them.
The wonderful things lawyers have done for us.

It is unfortunate, though I don't know that it's a given that they have to be disarmed. I seem to recall a few incidents from the past where an employee was armed and didn't lose there jobs. It is frustrating. Not a fan of Plaid Pantry to begin with (had an issue with them years ago and a homeless man they let live right behind my house), so no love for them.

 

[Alexx1401]

It is unfortunate, though I don't know that it's a given that they have to be disarmed. I seem to recall a few incidents from the past where an employee was armed and didn't lose there jobs. It is frustrating. Not a fan of Plaid Pantry to begin with (had an issue with them years ago and a homeless man they let live right behind my house), so no love for them.

Yes if it was up to me and common sense? Most clerks would be armed. Sadly if store owner can be shown that they knew employee was armed? Then store owner is also going to be libel if that employee does something stupid. You as an owner would literally have to be wiling to trust your lively hood with the people you hired. If one of them does something wrong the lawyers go for the one who can pay not the one who make the screw up. Voters allow this and even support it, so this is what we get now. It is damn sad.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

id rather have armed employees than dead employees and then getting sued by the families.

 

[Alexx1401]

id rather have armed employees than dead employees and then getting sued by the families.

Apparently the odds work for the stores as they are still on every corner. I don't like it but it does not change reality. Anyone who wants to start up a store and arm the staff can sure do it. If they started some here I would shop there just to show support. Won't be holding my breath waiting for this to happen though.