The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 15, 2018, 09:02 AM   #26
pete2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,702
No one has mentioned that had the thief been armed Academy would have had 1 less manager.
pete2 is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 10:22 AM   #27
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 1,967
Quote:
No one has mentioned that had the thief been armed Academy would have had 1 less manager.
That's because the "stuffed shirts" that write the rules only care about returns for their investors, life is secondary. Absurd statement? I'm proving absurdity by being absurd.
Mike38 is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 11:33 AM   #28
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,188
Quote:
No one has mentioned that had the thief been armed Academy would have had 1 less manager.
Maybe because the thief was armed. He had just stolen a pistol! And, one report I saw said they found two loaded magazines in his backpack. SO, I'd say he was armed.

The fact that he hadn't yet stopped to insert a magazine and load the pistol when he got tackled, was serendipity. He was armed.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 01:37 PM   #29
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 2,258
Quote:
UncleEd Glad the employee got his job back.

But I think stores should tell their employees
they are expected to stop thievery.

And if said employee gets his lunch handed
to him, then tough petunias. The employee
is not fired, he's just dead or seriously
maimed for life.


Maybe the store will give a big settlement
to the employee's family or see that he gets
medical treatment for six months.
Sorry, but this post is not very well thought out and I feel dumber for having read it.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)

Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
dogtown tom is offline  
Old July 15, 2018, 03:21 PM   #30
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,400
I think we understand that and no need to belabor that having staff fight for property alone is a bad policy to require of a wage slave.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 16, 2018, 06:55 AM   #31
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmr40 View Post
When employees try to detain thieves lots of bad things can happen. What if the employee is wrong about the suspected thief, or tries to detain the wrong person. That has happened before and people have pulled guns on store employees who wrongly tried to detain them. What if the thief pulls a gun and innocent shoppers are hit by gunfire. Thieves being chased have ran over innocent shoppers in parking lots trying to get away. If anyone is injured, even the bad guy, there will be a lawsuit and the store will lose.
Academy did the right thing as far as current legal realities go. Suing someone for the actions of someone else needs to be banned from the legal system.
ATN082268 is offline  
Old July 17, 2018, 10:34 AM   #32
osbornk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2012
Location: Marion, Va
Posts: 1,258
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA — Dean Crouch was fired a few weeks ago from his manager position at an Academy Sports location. The reason; He tackled a man who had just stolen a pistol and ammunition from the store.
After receiving national attention for his actions, the chain has decided to give him his job back.
“I am pleased to report that the head of Academy Sports + Outdoors stores spoke with Mr. Crouch and offered him his job back and Mr. Crouch accepted,” his attorney Ryan Hobbs said.
osbornk is offline  
Old July 17, 2018, 12:10 PM   #33
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 10,770
osbornk, see post #16.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 17, 2018, 01:13 PM   #34
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 1,644
I'm going to recount a story. I am reading a book called "Raising Men" by Eric Davis - a great read even for those without children. Davis is an ex-Navy SEAL instructor and he recounts how he, his kids, his wife, and his friends kids and wife were returning to his truck parked after doing some camping. Someone was rifling through the back of it and Davis recounts his intended course of action with his friend: to take their families, retreat to a distance, and observe. Their wives, being a little more in favor of immediate action, acted quicker to confront the thief. He goes on to recount a training drill where you were "safe" in a white box and had no time limit. The drill was to teach you to stay in safety when present.

Did the gun grabber present an imminent threat? Probably not. Yes he presented a long term threat but considering that he is now out on bail (accepting facts presented in this thread) that threat has not gone away. The assistant manager, while acting in good faith to prevent harm, gained nothing in the long term and took on substantial risk.

Heroic? Yes it was a heroic action and I applaud it. Personally I think those maintaining possession of a gun have a duty to maintain that possession so in that since I think what he did was right.

Meaningful in the long run? Nope. Just accepting risk for no meaningful gain. As has been noted the would be thief is not actually prevented from doing it again.

I can see the argument from the employers view to "stand down" and focus only on being a good witness for those who are given the duty of law enforcement.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old July 17, 2018, 05:11 PM   #35
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,188
Quote:
Did the gun grabber present an imminent threat? Probably not. Yes he presented a long term threat but considering that he is now out on bail (accepting facts presented in this thread) that threat has not gone away.
I can't agree with all of this. First off is the fact that the thief was an imminent threat. There is no justifiable "good" reason for stealing a pistol. Arguably the thief might have not been an immediate threat (at a specific moment), but he absolutely was an imminent threat as well as a long term threat.

Ok, so he's out on bail now, that the threat is back on the street is the responsibility of the Judge who granted bail. NOT the guy who DID STOP the threat, that day.

Quote:
The assistant manager, while acting in good faith to prevent harm, gained nothing in the long term and took on substantial risk.
I do agree with this, however, something was gained by taking the risk. The thief was stopped, he didn't get away with that gun, on that day. He didn't get to use that gun on anyone, that day, or on any other day. Maybe the thief will steal another gun, successfully, and maybe use it for evil, on another day, but he didn't get to do it on that day, he was stopped.

Sometimes, taking "substantial risk" for a short term gain IS the right thing to do. I think not taking an action that could have short term gain, for fear that it won't have long term gain is a very,very poor choice when people's lives are at risk.

Would you sleep soundly if you had failed to act, and because of that someone innocent died? What if the thief that you could have stopped, and didn't even try to, shot someone in the parking lot after getting past you? What if that someone was your wife or child ??? Would you still say it wasn't worth taking the risk because you couldn't see any long term gain???

How about an active shooter situation? Would you say it wasn't worthwhile to try and take him down, because he wasn't shooting at the moment you had the opportunity?? Would you let him go on, doing what he wanted, shooting other people, or would you DO something if you had the means??

Rabid dogs must be stopped. Not doing so, when you could, because the dog isn't trying to bite YOU at the moment isn't, in my opinion. the right answer.


Now I'm not saying throw your life away in a vain attempt, that would be stupid. But if you're the guy one the spot, and you decide, in the few seconds available, that you could act, successfully, then I think it would be moral cowardice not to.


On the other hand, if, in the limited time available, you decide that nothing you could do would matter, and would only add to your personal risk, its not cowardice to do nothing, its prudence.

None of us was there, none of us had to make that decision in a few seconds time, and so, none of us should armchair quarterback his decision.

Just my opinion, and worth every penny you paid for it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 18, 2018, 08:18 AM   #36
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 1,644
44 AMP you have some valid points in there and I cannot help but thinking back to the old Spider Man stories that lead to the death of Uncle Ben . Society has changed since those were inked and probably not for the better.

I think there is a duty that goes with owning a deadly weapon. For the record I would put that duty to exist with other obvious means of inflicting trauma like a vehicle so I don't intend to paint this into an anti-gun argument. No I don't intend to go to the extreme of "well that COULD harm someone" so I am going to have to beg the use of a Potter Stewart definition. If you own something so readily capable of killing or harming others you have a certain duty to protect it

I understand the policy of many stores to not pursue shoplifters. But we are not discussing a big screen TV, a deck of cards, or anything of that nature. We are discussing a gun and that is, to me, a fundamental difference.

I guess I need to readjust my thoughts on this in regards to Academy. The manager acted in good faith to protect the interests of both the store and the general public. Imagine the risk Academy has exposed themselves to. Prohibited person who needs a gun? Academy seems like an option. Just skip the paperwork.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old July 18, 2018, 08:32 AM   #37
MoArk Willy
Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2018
Posts: 17
Every store policy is written so it can mean anything management wants it to mean at any given time. That being said, I doubt this guy will stay at Academy too long. He may love his job but the publicity around this event will likely be a distraction for him to work their. It also reflects badly on upper management.
A precedent has now been set that if you break the rules you can get away with anything. But why did he do it....really?
To stop a shoplifter or a dangerous criminal? Guess he can say anything he wants and there is no way of knowing if he is just a gung ho manager or a wannabe superhero.
Either way he did the right thing.....despite his intent.
MoArk Willy is offline  
Old July 18, 2018, 02:36 PM   #38
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,369
Company policy is usually dictated by the insurance policies they hold. Risk reduction is often more important to the owners/managers of a business.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06272 seconds with 9 queries