Posted: 4/26/2003 4:27:10 AM EDT
|
The Associated Press State & Local Wire April 13, 2003, Sunday, BC cycle Kokomo, IN A drug store manager who fired two shots at an armed robber has been terminated by CVS Corp. officials, who said his actions put his co-worker's life in danger. Mike DeAngelis, spokesman for Woonsocket, R.I.-based CVS, said Mike Hart was fired for exercising poor judgment. "We certainly understand the difficult situation he's going through, but we investigated it and decided he exercised poor judgment in discharging a firearm at a fleeing suspect, needlessly putting people's lives at risk," DeAngelis said. Hart, 46, had been the store's manager for three years. He said he feels he was terminated "because I fought back." According to police reports, Hart and a female co-worker were getting ready to close the store on March 29 when a man walked in and asked about purchasing baby items. The man pulled out a handgun and demanded money and forced Hart and his co-worker into an upstairs office, where the store's safe was located. Hart obeyed the man's orders and gave him cash. But instead of leaving the store with the money, the intruder then started to put on gloves. Hart, who said he feared that he and his co-worker would be shot, went for the man's gun. "When i saw the guy put on the gloves, I thought he was going to shoot us," Hart said. "... The thing I thought about was I would never see my wife again." After grabbing the gun, Hart fired one round, but missed the man, who struggled with him for the weapon. His co-worker, who was lying on the floor during the struggle, escaped and called police. Inside the store, the struggle continued until the man pushed Hart and ran down the stairwell. At that point Hart said he fired a second shot in the fleeing man's direction "to scare him." He watched the man get into his vehicle and drive off, then called 911 to report the incident. No arrest have been made in the case. "I feel I did nothing wrong, and that I was protecting us by my actions," he said. Hart said he spoke to an attorney, but doesn't believe he has any legal avenues to pursue. He also made calls to a labor issues attorney for advice and is awaiting a reply. Howard County Sheriff Marty Talbert said he does not advocat vigilante-type actions by victims, but said Hart had every right to legally protect himself if he feared his life was in danger. |
|
Look, again, most of the imes robbers, thieves, and burglars want money. If they get the money they go away. That is why the advise to "give them waht they request" is often given. Banks have been doing this for some time. How many people get shot in bank robberies? The problem though is simple, what works most of the time doesn't work ALL of the time. Think for a second let it set in. Ready more stuff. If a robber tells you to move to one room to the other, starts saying the are going to tie you up, makes you kneel down or lie down, or a bunch of other things, after they get the money, the give them what they want and they will leave rules are NULL AND VOID. THEY WANT TO KILL YOU. Did that story describe a robbery that was proceeding by "the rules"? |
|
Quoted: Paying death benefits to employees families is less expensive than lawsuits defending good employees who stand up to bad guys. Jay Heh, heh. Ain't that the truth!!??? At first, before I read it, I thought maybe they fired him in an attempt to insulate themselves from a lawsuit, if the guy was wounded. |
|
Quoted: Look, again, most of the imes robbers, thieves, and burglars want money. If they get the money they go away. That is why the advise to "give them waht they request" is often given. Banks have been doing this for some time. How many people get shot in bank robberies? The problem though is simple, what works most of the time doesn't work ALL of the time. Think for a second let it set in. Ready more stuff. If a robber tells you to move to one room to the other, starts saying the are going to tie you up, makes you kneel down or lie down, or a bunch of other things, after they get the money, the give them what they want and they will leave rules are NULL AND VOID. THEY WANT TO KILL YOU. Did that story describe a robbery that was proceeding by "the rules"? Like oly says, look at the totality of the circumstances. The guy gets his $$, then starts putting on gloves?? WTH?? WAS it cold out? [:D] As a juror in a civil suit AGAINST the company on this guys behalf, I'd be paying attention to testimony from an "Expert Witness" like oly..... |
| If you read carefully, it sounds like he got fired for [b]discharging a firearm at a fleeing suspect[/b], [i]not defending himself[/i]. I think this is generally hard to justify, right? If the unarmed guy is already running away, and you have a gun, it's hard to argue that your life is in immediate danger. If he'd shot the guy in the back and killed him, the manager would probably be in even bigger trouble with the police. |
| You guys dont understand. We should just give them what they want ALL the time. Its only material things. Isnt that what insurance is for? Its perfectly ok for them to take what is not theirs by force. Insurance will pay for it. Dont shoot at the poor guy running away from you. Whatever he has just done is perfectly fine. After all, if he's running away he must feel sorry for what he did and surely he will never do it again and most certainly is no longer a threat since he isnt facing you. Good thing the company fired the guy. Such voilent people are dangerous. He could have killed the poor robber. All that just because the guy wanted a little money. |
|
That Sheriff needs to learn difference between a victim and a vigilante, and everybody needs to stop worrying about the imperfections of the victims actions. It's fine for a trained professional to have his actions quarterbacked, and we all know even they will choke. The victim gets a reasonable amount of slack in my book. |
|
Quoted: You guys dont understand. We should just give them what they want ALL the time. Its only material things. Isnt that what insurance is for? Its perfectly ok for them to take what is not theirs by force. Insurance will pay for it. Dont shoot at the poor guy running away from you. Whatever he has just done is perfectly fine. After all, if he's running away he must feel sorry for what he did and surely he will never do it again and most certainly is no longer a threat since he isnt facing you. Good thing the company fired the guy. Such voilent people are dangerous. He could have killed the poor robber. All that just because the guy wanted a little money. Excellent use of sarcasim, Hawk! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: You guys dont understand. We should just give them what they want ALL the time. Its only material things. Isnt that what insurance is for? Its perfectly ok for them to take what is not theirs by force. Insurance will pay for it. Dont shoot at the poor guy running away from you. Whatever he has just done is perfectly fine. After all, if he's running away he must feel sorry for what he did and surely he will never do it again and most certainly is no longer a threat since he isnt facing you. Good thing the company fired the guy. Such voilent people are dangerous. He could have killed the poor robber. All that just because the guy wanted a little money. Excellent use of sarcasim, Hawk! Was it? [>:/] |
|
This countries way of thinking has gone to crap. IF THEY WOULD START SHOOTING AND KILLING MORE OF THESE S.O.B.'s THEN THE LAZY ASS MOTHER@#CKERS WOULD GET A JOB AND QUIT RIPPING OFF EVERYONE ELSE! But this it what happens when you raise our society up on welfare and food stamps and teach them that it's ok to be a lazy ass good for nothing piece of $hit! Sorry, but I just had to rant on this one. 556mm |
|
First of all, one male and one female victim. This leave to question what the robbers intentions were while putting on his gloves. Second, the manager did not know at that time where the female was. "His co-worker, who was lying on the floor during the struggle, escaped and called police. " The suspect was fleeing, however an untrained individual in a survival situation (the fight itself was said survival situation) is pumping soooooo much adrenaline that that he has difficulty identifying when the threat ended. I support the manager fully. |
|
Quoted: This sucks! My daughter works for CVS and this does not make me feel comfortable about their policies. The_Camp_Ninja would know the straight skinny on this. Maybe he will chime in with his input. How say ye, Paul? It's a tough call, David, but I honestly feel, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, that CVS was right. I myself am the G.M. of a CVS, and as such am well aware of our company's policy of no weapons. Now, this was NOT the manager's weapon, given. BUT, if he indeed fired at a fleeing suspect, at that point, when they are fleeing, they are no longer a threat, and as such, you really may not fire at them. If there is more to this story, I may stand corrected, and CVS may indeed be rash in their decision. But if the manager fired on a FLEEING suspect, having made the mistake of not hitting/killing him in the first place, then the manager is wrong in this case, IMHO, YIMMV. Ninja OUT!!! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: This sucks! My daughter works for CVS and this does not make me feel comfortable about their policies. The_Camp_Ninja would know the straight skinny on this. Maybe he will chime in with his input. How say ye, Paul? It's a tough call, David, but I honestly feel, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, that CVS was right. I myself am the G.M. of a CVS, and as such am well aware of our company's policy of no weapons. Now, this was NOT the manager's weapon, given. BUT, if he indeed fired at a fleeing suspect, at that point, when they are fleeing, they are no longer a threat, and as such, you really may not fire at them. If there is more to this story, I may stand corrected, and CVS may indeed be rash in their decision. But if the manager fired on a FLEEING suspect, having made the mistake of not hitting/killing him in the first place, then the manager is wrong in this case, IMHO, YIMMV. Ninja OUT!!! 1st, to the comedic genius, it is cheaper to have insurance to pay out on a $200.00 robbery loss, than a settlement to employee killed trying to defend $200.00 I agree that if a robber demands money, you give them the money and they will leave. MOST of the time. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases. He had the money, and decided not to leave. Most States still have fleeing felon laws. The manager didn't know where his employee was. For all he knew the suspect was going after the employee. Plus this story seems to suggest that the suspect was about to commit a double homicide. In light of that the manager could say that he was trying to protect everyone that might come into contact with the fleeing felon, and was protecting them. [red]Howard County Sheriff Marty Talbert said he does not advocat vigilante-type actions by victims, but said Hart had every right to legally protect himself if he feared his life was in danger.[/red] Try this, [red]Howard County Sheriff Marty Talbert said Hart had every right to legally protect himself if he feared his life was in danger.[/red] The other part of the statement, was the legalese disclaimer. Not meant to apply to Hart, as I read it. |
| As Axel said, its easy to Monday morning quarterback the manager's actions. The fact of the matter is that the guy was in fear for his life and may have saved both his own and his employee's lives. Maybe it was poor judgement to fire the second shot, but I've made judgement errors in much less stressful situations. This guy was in a life and death struggle that required split second decisions under extreme stress. I personally hope that if I am ever in a situation like that that I have the courage to do what he did. CVS can go to hell! |
| I will extrapolate a little. You see the manager never fired the second shot at all. Being that this bad guy was probably a highly educated and sophisticated, not to mention discriminating gun owner, he was probably armed with a fine product from the Bryco line, and being that ehse weapons are known for discharging during unloaded. It is obvious to me that the manager was only attempting to unload this high quality weapon after he saw the misguided youth flee, and sensing that the danger had pass he was dutifully unloading the pistol (that he had just stolen), when its design imperfection became evident in the form of an accidental discharge. So they were wrong to fire the manager for firing at a fleeing thief, what they should have fired him for was stealing a firearm from an oppressed young man, who will now be forced to go out and steal a weapon before he can return to work. |
|
OK, lessee, A presumeably untrained drug store manager goes hand to hand with an armed robber who is about to kill two people in cold blood, wins the fight, disarms the perp, puts the "pickup" firearm into action and fires on him until the guy has run for his life like a whipped dog? All I have to say is Fuckin A! He did damn good. Bravo! (edit for speeeling!) |
|
I work with the public for a large company and this is just the way they deal with this sorta thing. I'll bet their "investigation" is just so much gas. They probably have a policy of no resistence whatsoever and it wouldn't have mattered whether the guy was "fleeing" or not. The fact that he fought at all probably got him fired,if not,the firing of a gun in any circumstance surly did. My companies policy is to keep qiet and give whatever the asshole/thief wants,then keep quiet and do nothing until they leave. They have official policy papers like this that you are required to sign(they have you sign some kinda bullshit every other month),I wouldn't be surprised if this guy had signed something similar especially considering he's management. I'm sure from the companies perspective they figure that anything that may happen to a customer or anyone else after an action is taken can be blamed on the employee and the companies training,reguardless of the circumstances. I don't agree with it,but thats where we're at in these litigious times. Letting scumbags go is more important than peoples safty or getting said shit heads off the streets. |
|
Quoted: I work with the public for a large company and this is just the way they deal with this sorta thing. I'll bet their "investigation" is just so much gas. They probably have a policy of no resistence whatsoever and it wouldn't have mattered whether the guy was "fleeing" or not. The fact that he fought at all probably got him fired,if not,the firing of a gun in any circumstance surly did. My companies policy is to keep qiet and give whatever the asshole/thief wants,then keep quiet and do nothing until they leave. They have official policy papers like this that you are required to sign(they have you sign some kinda bullshit every other month),I wouldn't be surprised if this guy had signed something similar especially considering he's management. I'm sure from the companies perspective they figure that anything that may happen to a customer or anyone else after an action is taken can be blamed on the employee and the companies training,reguardless of the circumstances. I don't agree with it,but thats where we're at in these litigious times. Letting scumbags go is more important than peoples safty or getting said shit heads off the streets. I can understand the no resistance policy, and that is fine if the guy takes the money and leaves. The problem is that the manager in my opinion had good reason to believe that the guy was not just going to leave and was going to maybe kill him and his co-worker. It is completely unreasonable and reprehensible to expect your employees to not even try and save their own lives. Maybe the scumbag had not intention of killing them. Maybe he was just putting on gloves because his hands were cold. However one cannot reasonably expect the manager, after seeing those actions, not to defend himself. To me, it is irresponsible of CVS to second guess their employees in a situation like this. Instead they should be supporting them after such a stressful event. |