You have to feel sorry for the people at Kroger who must make the decision on what to do about this. They're going to make thousands mad no matter which way they go (just different sets of thousands):
The actions of a Kroger store manager who shot and killed a would-be robber inside the grocery store are being hailed by many as heroic.
But it's also likely that the manager violated company rules on bringing guns into the workplace.
That thrusts Kroger into an awkward and unenviable place -- front and center in the midst of a polarizing public debate over whether guns belong in the workplace.
[. . .]
Under Indiana law, Kroger is allowed to decide whether to let employees bring guns to work. And if an employee breaks a company rule, Kroger is under no legal obligation to discipline or fire him -- or to make its decision public.
The problem, Indianapolis lawyer Michael Blickman said, is that not disciplining Elliott would open the door for some legal risk in the future.
Gun owners aren't necessarily trained in how to deal with dangerous situations. If another employee one day fires a gun and accidentally hurts an innocent person, the company could become liable if it's thought to be permissive about weapons in the workplace, said Blickman, a partner in the labor and employment group at Ice Miller.
That Kroger is on my sister's side of Indianapolis, and she shops there occasionally. I said something to her on the phone about how lucky everybody was that the employee had a gun and how differently it might have turned out otherwise. She agreed, but added: "I'm just glad I wasn't there when it happened." That's a measure of the ambivalence most people feel about guns at work, or guns anywhere, for that matter. If the bad guys show up armed, it's better that someone on our side is packing, too. But someone with a gun doesn't have to be a bad guy to cause mayhem with it. He may not have the skill or judgment to use it properly, and who wants to be caught in the middle of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral when all we wanted was a quart of milk and a loaf of bread?
Comments
Back when things were really crazy in my neighborhood, I carried my weapon a lot of places I either thought or knew I shouldn't. It wasn't that I expected to run into one of the gangsters while I was shopping or getting stamps, just that it was sometimes difficult to remove a weapon from my holster in the car without possibly causing a scene.
I have one rule that I always follow, though, and that is I never take my weapon into another person's home without notifying them first. I would extend that to my employer as well.
Kroger owns the dominant convenience store brand in Lancaster County, Turkey Hill. A couple of years ago, it made the news when they fired a clerk who said "No" when someone tried to rob the joint.
Told "No", the robber simply turned and fled, and he was arrested a few minutes later. However, he violated company policy. There's never more than $50 on hand, so give it to the robber, give him a smile, wish him good luck - and call the cops the minute he leaves.
A bullet is almost guaranteed to cost them at least $500 in replacing a refrigeration unit, a freezer unit, or plate glass, and if it hits an employee or a customer, it'll cost far more, so they don't want to give anyone an excuse to fire a gun.
They have lots of really good cameras in the stores, so the robber is usually on the news the next two nights, the first time with a really sharp picture (why do banks even bother with their crappy cameras?) and the second time as an arrest report.
And with a reputation for being a safe place to be, dads are willing to let their teenaged daughters work as cashiers there. That's gotta bring them a little more business.
But what about if the robber shoots and kills someone? Even if that is a rare occurance, it has to be figured in if you are doing a cost/benefit analysis.
Given all the many possible scenarios; gun is not real, gun is not loaded, gun misfires, etc, suppose the odds are only 1:1,000 that a person will die if no one tries to stop the robber. That means that the average life would have to be worth only $50,000 for doing nothing to be the best option.
Bottom line is, too many hypotheticals and too many lawyers. Give this guy a raise and a pat on back and some more ammo.
You wanna keep squirrels off your deck? Shoot one, the others tend to stay away. Works the same with criminals.
Phil, you've got your thinking cap askew.
If someone has pulled out his gun, and aimed it, do you readdy think that the clerk is that fast that he can unbutton his shirt, unsnap his holster, pull out his handgun, aim it at the robber AND squeeze the trigger, all before the robber simply squeezes the trigger?
Odds are pretty high it simply results in two bullets in the air instead of one. Or do you think the average gun enthusiast can fire a bullet at another bullet and cause both bullets to stop dead in the air, harmlessly?
Another supermarket chain here in town had an armed security guard chase a shoplifter into the parking lot. The shoplifter made it to an adjoining state; the guard made it to the critical care unit with two hits to the head, one to the back. Google Kenneth Peralta.
Wearing a white hat doesn't make one bulletproof; we've all seen too many episodes of Hopalong Cassidy. An unconcealed weapon is like a Club on your steering wheel. A concealed one merely means you're giving the bad guy a head start.
Swat a bee on your deck, and all the others come to his funeral. Leave it alone and when he finds there are no flowers, he and his buddies go elsewhere.
Harl, the hypothetical you set up does not match that of the story referenced here. The guy with the gun had an advantage in that the robber did not know he was there. Regardless, as Tim says there are too many hypotheticals to make a complete analysis.
Could we all agree, though, that putting all the robbers in a locked room with all the lawyers might improve our society a bit?
Some damnable fool would probably unlock the door before they all died of thirst.