Should a man be fired for helping stop a purse snatcher?

According to what i found :” A company flack explained that employees are trained not to pursue suspects in criminal situations. “The policy exists for the safety of our employees, customers and others who may be seriously injured in a chase,” she recited with robotic iciness. Rules are rules. :”

He went against company policy ,so maybe although a good deed, he did break the rules . .

I’ve worked for quite a few companies, and all had the same rule “Don’t be a hero” If someone was holding a gun at you, you do what they say. Of course if you could, press the emergency button, but don’t do anything else.
I’ve never heard of someone actually being fired for it, but if it was something the guy was told not to do when he was hired, then he broke the rules. It does stink though, since he was doing a good deed.

What these situations boil down to is the employee choosing to abandon a rule in lieu of their own decided action. Many times chasing after a criminal can lead to getting hurt, what if the robber had a gun and shot him in the field? Now he’s dead over a purse of contents that can be easily replaced.

We had the same policy at McDonald’s – if someone robs you, don’t put up a fight, don’t be a hero, just give them whatever and call the cops when they’re gone. I imagine such places have insurance policies against exactly such incidents, not to mention the amount of money lost is really inconsequential.

Good dead or not, it can lead to the person being dead. And that really sucks.

Is your life really worth less than a purse, or stopping a bank robber, or whatever, when you yourself won’t lose anything by complying beyond being scared?

Furthermore, it indicates that the employee is willing to supersede company policies in lieu of what they choose to do at that time. This is not really a quality to be desired in simple job lackeys.

He wasn’t fired for helping to stop a purse snatcher. He was fired for disobeying a company rule he was fully aware of. Company rules that you agree to follow are company rules that you agree to follow, no matter what they are.

A couple of weeks ago my nephew was at work and tackled a guy who was hitting a small child who did not belong to him. He was commended for his actions – even though they were against company policy. I think a stern reprimand is in order but not a firing. If the store managers had given any thought to the negative publicity that would surround the firing, that is probably the course of action they would have chosen.

Was the thief killed? It doesn’t say so in the details.

@SuperMouse, then that company’s policy needs refinement.

In the case of the man who was fired, you DON’T know if he did other things in the past that made his employers consider firing him.

@Quagmire, I agree that this guy may have had poor employment record and this was the last straw. But without knowing that and going off only the facts we have here, I don’t think he should be fired.

It at least would seem to be shortsighted in terms of poor public relations.

I would hope that someone in the community would offer him a better job than working in a grocery store as a result of this firing. Two things that an Army vet is adept at is 1) following “company” rules and 2) assessing the danger in a situation, and acting appropriately.

He should have been reprimanded, because that’s the rules. Also the bank doesn’t want other tellers to feel compelled to do the same thing. But firing the man seems a bit harsh. Hopefully he goes to another bank with a higher pay.

If abiding by that policy was important to that company, then the guy should have been fired. It doesn’t have to be important to anyone else.

I understand the rule and need for it. In this case it sounds like he was outside the store or any area where the store could be held liable for what happened if the thief had a gun.

By the rule yes he could be fired.

I don’t know that he should be.

I do feel like firing the guy is a little extreme. As it seems everyone is in agreement that he did break the rules. I am a bit curious how everyone else would respond in a situation like that. If you could ignore the adrenaline and have a couple of seconds to remember the company rules, would you say to heck with them or go after the thief?

Honestly, I think the problem might simply have been leaving the store. If he ran that far after a purse snatcher, a myriad of things could go wrong, not just his being injured by the thief. This might not be the case with a purse snatcher but with another kind of robbery, what if there were accomplices the employee didn’t know about? I do agree that firing him may have been a bit extreme if this was a first time offense. If he has broken company rules before, however, then perhaps firing was the best course of action.

Not only that. Suppose the company, in a case like that, want an employee’s TOP priority to be the customers in the store? To make sure they’re OK and calm?

He was still on company time. If something had gone wrong, the company would be liable. What if he tackled the purse snatcher, and the purse snatcher’s gun went off, killing a child.

i think he did the right thing…there would probably be a lot less crime if criminals thought they would suffer repercussions from the public..so long as the guy didnt injure anyone (thief included) i think its good for people to be intolerant of crime…too much of life is crappy because people are so afraid of “what if’s”...everyone should grow up take responsibility for their own actions an stop suing each other

For every successful hero like this story, there’s 10 or 20 unsuccessful heroes who put not only themselves but their fellow employees and their customers at risk. This guy was 100% in the wrong, and yes, he should have been fired. He is not a police officer, and I’m pretty sure military training doesn’t include “stop the purse snatcher”. He reacted on instinct, and put himself, employees, customers, and random passers-by at danger by making a volatile situation potentially more volatile. If the thief hadn’t simply run, if he’d turned around and opened fire, I don’t think anyone would be calling this guy a hero. But he had no way of knowing that wasn’t going to happen when he made his decision to pursue.

The employer gets to do what it wants, but I think it is a stupid decision on almost every level to fire an employee for that. As a customer, I would tend to think of the store as lame and avoid patronizing them for being so lame to someone who went above and beyond to help.

What store is it, by the way? I want to boycott them now. :-P

well I suppose if you really wanted to catch criminals maybe he should join the police instead of working in a grocery store…but I disagree that he was putting people in danger because the robber might have started shooting people…to my mind that would be the robber putting people in danger….not the guy who was trying to help

@PandoraBoxx You said ” Two things that an Army vet is adept at is 1) following “company” rules ” the thing there is he didn’t follow company rules, so for that reason he may not get a job fast .

@noodle_poodle if you get shot, do you really care who’s legally at fault? Or do you just care that “I GOT SHOT!”? There’s a difference between “is responsible for” and “could have prevented”.

Someone should ask the guy who got sacked , was it really worth it to break the work rule now ?

@MrItty i didn’t mean it in a legal sense…if i had been shot in that circumstance i wouldnt even consider being mad at the guy trying to help..i’d be mad/upset at the thief who got up in the morning decided to bring a gun to public place with the intention to shoot or threaten people and then decided use it….it would be him and only him that i would consider responsible….that’s just me though…i guess i can kinda see why people would think differently…if i was being mugged or raped I’d sure as hell want someone to but in and help even if it was at the risk of making it worse…you cant predict the future nor should be expected to you can only do what you believe to be right at the time….and though its just a purse theft its still a violation of someone elses rights that they thought they could get away with and i am glad they didnt

@noodle_poodle if the thief was “only” going to take your purse, but as the result of the hero’s actions also ended up shooting you, you’d still only be pissed at the thief? You’re a better person than I am.

@MrItty yeh tottaly if he was “only” gonna snatch a purse why’d he bring a gun? I think modern life had kinda screwed the way we view responsibility its like we don’t believe people can take responsibility for their own decisions…its always someone else’s fault..and i really think that’s no way to live ..I mean if the worst did happen i am sure the employee guy would probably feel terrible but the world would totally suck if people never tried to do any good just for fear of consequences its because we are all so afraid of what might happen…i reckon it might be that which allows people are able to so freely commit crimes in the first place..i mean mug some old lady knowing nobody will do anything except call the cops..buy which time you might have got away is one thing but they might think again if they knew that everyone who sees you and that you pass running are trying to stop you

it might prevent the crime when it was just an idea in someone’s head

It seems like every one is making the assumption there was a gun involved, I did not mention anything about a gun. I can’t be 100% sure there wasn’t, but based on the reporting and the interview the man made, I can safely say that there was no gun. A firearm definately would have complicated the situation and if there was one involved it surely would have been mentioned.

sorry @Ansible1 drifted into the hypothetical

The police hate it when citizens take the apprehension of criminals into their own hands, and of course the employers have a right to demand employees follow the rules. I can see where this could have had a much different outcome.

The employee shouldn’t pick and choose which rules to follow and which ones to disobey.

Actually, I wonder if there aren’t laws that prevent employers from dismissing people from doing something like civic duty. It sounds like the activity even happened off the store property – the employee left and only caught up to the purse snatcher in a field.

@Zaku Civic Duty is voting, and jury duty. This was vigilantism, and is generally illegal.

@MrItty – If so then you know more about the story than I do. The description under the question merely has it that he followed the snatcher and found where he was, which isn’t vigilante-ism, and while it may be beyond what is expected, seems to me very much falls under civic duty, though I agree that’s a matter of opinion (as I said, “something like civic duty”).

That is a tough topic. It does seem only fair for people to have the right to stop a criminal if that’s what they choose to do knowing all the risks. At the same time though it’s true that if employers allowed this they would be putting themselves and others at risk. Employees really are helpless in that aspect. When I worked at Marshalls we were told to never stop a criminal. If for example we knew someone was putting items in their bag/purse we could only say subtle things to let them know we noticed them like “Can I help you?” or “Do you need something?” (asked several times etc.) Obviously we would call the security guard if he was there, but he often wasn’t. One time I remember the security guard chasing after a man who stole a woman’s purse. But if the security guard wasn’t there we couldn’t get involved (only could call the police) even if we saw someone openly walk out with an item. The door alarm would often go off and we were allowed to check the person’s bag, but nothing more and if it still went off there was nothing we could do. What if the story was that a man was physically harming a woman in the store. An employee cannot get involved and defend her? That doesn’t make sense. Yeah hopefully that guy finds a better job maybe in the end its a good thing he was fired and at least he knows in his mind he was just trying to help someone and do a nice thing. Great topic Ansible1:)

Yeah, I’d hire him if I had a job he could do, and I’d make it clear he wouldn’t be fired for well-intended Samaritan-like activities he might take it upon himself to do.

i don’t think he should. yeah, rules are rules, but there are a million rules that should never have been made, and i think that’s one of them.
it’s lovely to know that someone loses their job for doing something good~

@tiffyandthewall Great answer ! Exactly what I think about this