AutoZone, Not very Good

[Colonel Taylor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPvmAECzb5A
Man fired for saving a life? Go figure.
He's welcome to carry anyplace I am. Good Job!

AUTO ZONE CONTACT US

[Leo Lyons]

Policy or no policy; this is unbelievable. The employee didn't bring the gun into the store when he began his work day; he went and got it to save someone's life. I guess corporate profits are worth more than a life.

[Colonel Taylor]

Policy or no policy; this is unbelievable. The employee didn't bring the gun into the store when he began his work day; he went and got it to save someone's life. I guess corporate profits are worth more than a life.

This is so true. I think it's all about liability is all. Which sucks when someone can't see to adjust for common sense.
There's a lot of this going on even here in Henderson County. I mentioned a few stores who no longer repair their outdoor camera's (even having them removed) because if they work there is a feeling of safety by the customer therefore making the store liable. I was ridiculed for saying so but twice now in the local paper there was a story about camera's not working so a thug got away. Reason, they are now not liable for the customers safety. Same train of thought all about law suits I guess.

[Leo Lyons]

Most security cameras in use today aren't worth a fart in a whirlwind anyway. They produce grainy, fuzzy videos because they can't (or won't) be cleaned routinely, or they're cheap as can be bought and not high-definition.

As much money as Walmart, for example, spends on visual security, you'd think they would take steps to maintain their equipment to ensure it's working properly. (I will admit that their cameras have been successful in the apprehension of many low-lifes, but for the most part, their videos are crap.)

[Colonel Taylor]

Most security cameras in use today aren't worth a fart in a whirlwind anyway. They produce grainy, fuzzy videos because they can't (or won't) be cleaned routinely, or they're cheap as can be bought and not high-definition.

As much money as Walmart, for example, spends on visual security, you'd think they would take steps to maintain their equipment to ensure it's working properly. (I will admit that their cameras have been successful in the apprehension of many low-lifes, but for the most part, their videos are crap.)

Exactly and I'm sure there is a reason they don't upgrade. If you remember the incident at the Smoke House a few months back maybe a year now there was a women who was assaulted. Yup the cameras weren't operable. There was also a few car break-ins at the Sonic by the lowlifes who hang there at night in the summer. Again the cameras weren't operable.

Fixed by smart phone!

[Leo Lyons]

operatable ?

[Colonel Taylor]

operatable ?

Operable, better.
I haven't figured out how to move things on my not so smart phone yet. It has a mind of it's own.

[O Really]

If anybody needed an example of how stupid "zero tolerance" policies are, that's a good one. I bet the courageous guy won't go long without a job.

[k9nanny]

Policy or no policy; this is unbelievable. The employee didn't bring the gun into the store when he began his work day; he went and got it to save someone's life. I guess corporate profits are worth more than a life.

This is so true. I think it's all about liability is all. Which sucks when someone can't see to adjust for common sense.
There's a lot of this going on even here in Henderson County. I mentioned a few stores who no longer repair their outdoor camera's (even having them removed) because if they work there is a feeling of safety by the customer therefore making the store liable. I was ridiculed for saying so but twice now in the local paper there was a story about camera's not working so a thug got away. Reason, they are now not liable for the customers safety. Same train of thought all about law suits I guess.

I would like to see an example of a store being held liable for the reasons you state. Home Owner Associations have dealt with the question of liability, and my (admittedly limited) research finds that the HOA is not held liable simply because of security cameras.
Are you saying if I get mugged in the Walmart parking lot, I can sue them for giving me a false sense of security?

Knowledge of traffic cams, security cams, surveillance cams might inspire the would-be crook to have second thoughts about his/her target. However, as far as I can tell, other than the deterrence factor, cameras are most useful as electronic "witnesses," and are by no means any guarantee of safety. I mean, banks get robbed all the time, don't they?

Thanksgiving weekend, a tenant, late with rent, met and blew away his landlord outside a Raleigh Carquest. Would the presence of cameras make the business liable for the murder? If a property owner foregoes cameras out of fear of liability, that's just plain stupid. I have a camera covering my parking lot so I can see who's approaching. If one customer jumps out of her car and blows away another customer, I'm in no way responsible.

More Det.Thorn "I know someone who" nonsense.

Edit: agreeing with O Really.

[O Really]

Shocking though it may be, the Colonel's friends have only a part of the story.
There have been lawsuits over companies putting in fake cameras, as well as lawsuits over cameras not being maintained. So sure, they're not required to have cameras, and having no camera is better than having a fake one or one that does not work. More of a problem, though, is the poor quality of image in most typical cameras, making them easy to challenge in court. Nevertheless, most security experts say that it's better to have surveillance - visible and properly working - than not, and that simply having a surveillance camera - that does work properly - wouldn't increase the liability or make the company liable for something it wouldn't have been otherwise.

[Colonel Taylor]

Father fatally shoots (seven-year-old) son outside Pennsylvania gun store

What's your point the guy was an idiot and should and may be charged. More people are killed in car accidents every years, that's why they are called accidents.

[Colonel Taylor]

Father fatally shoots (seven-year-old) son outside Pennsylvania gun store

What's your point the guy was an idiot and should and may be charged. More people are killed in car accidents every year, that's why they are called accidents.

I just linked an article about a store and a gun, same as you, stupid. The rest is all your stupid assumptions and the guy did not run over his son.

And I offered my OPINION on an OPINION forum stupid. He should be charged with the very least being stupid. The original story I posted was someone BREAKING the LAW by ROBBING it and a citizen who may have SAVED A LIFE while not breaking ANY LAW be terminated. SO what's your point?

[Colonel Taylor]

Father fatally shoots (seven-year-old) son outside Pennsylvania gun store

What's your point the guy was an idiot and should and may be charged. More people are killed in car accidents every year, that's why they are called accidents.

I just linked an article about a store and a gun, same as you, stupid. The rest is all your stupid assumptions and the guy did not run over his son.

And I offered my OPINION on an OPINION forum stupid.

And I replied re the stupid assumptions, stupid.

He should be charged with the very least being stupid.

You are the last person in the world that should want that to be a crime.

The original story I posted was someone BREAKING the LAW by ROBBING it and a citizen who may have SAVED A LIFE while not breaking ANY LAW be terminated. SO what's your point?

There's no evidence for that. Let's look at your story rationally:

The robber, while certainly an ass, has not hurt anyone that we know of in a possible 30 stick-ups, so all the stuff about "Saving Manager's Life" is contradicted by what we do know.
Devon, while certainly heroic, increased the risk to himself, the manager, any customers, etc. all just to protect a few corporate dollars given the previous 29 outcomes.
The robber got away with his gun, so no future stores have been protected and he could very well be more aggressive next time thanks to this experience.
AutoZone has a zero tolerance policy in order to prevent tragic outcomes because it has no way of knowing whether all its employees are as competent as Devon or as incompetent as Joseph V. Loughrey.
AutoZone has to enforce its policy equally or open itself up to liability and/or discrimination charges.
Devon will do just fine. As O Really says, he's unlikely to "go long without a job." And, given that he's clean-cut, articulate, brave and now famous, it'll almost certainly be a better paying one than being an auto parts clerk. So, what's all your handwringing about?

Leave it to the form liberal to protect yet another criminal. 0:-?>

[Stinger]

Leave it to the form liberal to protect yet another criminal. 0:-?>

So examining all the facts and attempting to reach logical conclusions is somehow twisted into protecting a criminal by Colonel Sanders.

He don't like all that thinking stuff. Just too confusing.

Explains his posts, though.

[Sometime Lefty]

Best line of the year!!

He should be charged with the very least being stupid.

You are the last person in the world that should want that to be a crime.

[Stinger]

Best line of the year!!

He should be charged with the very least being stupid.

You are the last person in the world that should want that to be a crime.

We know what Colonel Sanders would get if it were.

[O Really]

Interesting concept, there, Colonel ("Your really think criminals will obey gun laws?")

So if some people won't obey a law 100% of the time, we shouldn't have that law, right?

[Colonel Taylor]

[O Really]

So, Colonel, if the principle expressed in your avatar really does make sense, could you name us one law that the same principle would NOT apply to? Meaning that if nobody should bother with gun laws because some will not obey them, why bother to have any law at all. Your principle is either true, or it's not. If it's true for gun laws, it would be true for any law. Or maybe you could tell us a law it would not apply to?

[Colonel Taylor]

So, Colonel, if the principle expressed in your avatar really does make sense, could you name us one law that the same principle would NOT apply to? Meaning that if nobody should bother with gun laws because some will not obey them, why bother to have any law at all. Your principle is either true, or it's not. If it's true for gun laws, it would be true for any law. Or maybe you could tell us a law it would not apply to?

Point is liberals keep talking of common sense gun laws. Please tell us WHAT GUN LAW criminal will obey? I obey laws, something your liberal friends made fun of me at one point for pointing out. If I remember she said she didn't follow them. Ahh to be a Liberal. Laws and rules are for others right?