Employee Nabs Crook, Gets Fired

[SteveGrenard]

MURFREESBORO, Tenn.- He lost his job, but he gained national exposure. An employee was fired by Home Depot for restraining a would-be crook. Now Dustin Chester gets a chance to share his story on national radio.

And it is likely the perp won't even be prosecuted or charged:

Home Depot said its employees are trained implicitly not to pursue shoplifters. Chester said he doesn't remember ever reading or hearing about such a policy.

Home Depot said they will likely not press charges against the man suspected of breaking into the Coke machine.

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7003417

[HawkeyeMD]

I think that's pretty common for all big-company stores. Unless you're security or the police, it's not your job. I would imagine the chances--and potential cost--of your either getting hurt or hurting the perp are much greater than any possible advantage to the company. One lawsuit, even if the company wins, costs more in legal fees than a Coke machine.

And it is likely the perp won't even be prosecuted or charged:


That's a shame, but that's their call.

[strathmeyer]

What if the crook started assaulting customers? Is it still company policy to do nothing? I'll remember this next time I see a Home Depot employee getting assaulted.

[EGarrett]

What if the crook started assaulting customers? Is it still company policy to do nothing? I'll remember this next time I see a Home Depot employee getting assaulted.In that case, the crook is not a shoplifter.

It does make sense though, in fact, I think the company has to do this...because they must make it clear that they DO NOT WANT their employees to do this, so they avoid all the liability lawsuits that would come from employees or would-be/suspected shoplifters if they are injured.

[gnome]

I guess the real question is whether in fact this employee was informed of that policy, and that it was a condition of employment.

If it's that big of a deal they should include it in the employment agreement... for all I know, they did.

[SteveGrenard]

In that case, the crook is not a shoplifter.

The perp in this case is not and was never a shop -lifter. He was a robber.He did not steal or attempt to steal merchandise. He broke into a Coke machine and stole $61.00 in cash. What is the difference between this and breaking into a cash register or a safe and stealing the cash that may be in these things?

If he assaulted and robbed customers I agree that makes him neither a shoplifter or a robber but a strong-arm or, perhaps even armed robber.
He didn't physically assault anyone. It is not clear what Home Depot's policy would be if a "customer" assaulted another customer or an employee.

[HawkeyeMD]

I doubt that Home Depot would make much of distinction between stealing merchandise and breaking into a vending machine.

The point to them would be that the minimal loss to the company--in this case, I guess $61 plus the cost of repairing the machine, which is undoubtedly insured anyway--would be far outweighed by the cost to the company if the employee got hurt trying to stop the crook. What if he falls and hurts his back? What if the guy pulls a knife?

And if the crook is subdued but is injured in the process, he too can sue the company, and he will probably win. You shouldn't try and stop a criminal on your own, you should call the cops. They're the ones whose job it is to deal with it.

If the alleged criminal is actually attacking someone, that's a different story. I don't know what policy would be, but I would bet it would be something like "get in the middle as little as possible and call the cops." Only in better HR language, of course.

[shemp]

This is just another example of the "Pussification of America." People are so scared of getting sued that they let crooks get away with crap like this. When I was a lad, when a bank got robbed, do you think they sat around waiting for the cops to show up? No! They got a posse of citizens together, jumped on their horses, and went after the scumbags! My father personally shot and killed Jesse James and about 100-10,000 other bank robbers! (The exact number depends on how many shots of 100 proof he's had.) OK, so maybe they shot a few bystanders and lynched a few innocent people now and then, but by cracky, there was less crime, and the streets were safe for respectable god-fearing people! NOW YOU DAMN KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN AND GO SHOOT A FEW CROOKS!!!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Frequently the training in such companies is so lackluster that what the employees learn is totally different from what the protocols say. Frequently the managers are too lazy to care. It's highly likely that this person never saw or even heard of such a policy.

Also, How can Home Depot prevent this person from being prosecuted? Can't the state or city press charges for this crime regardless of what Home Depot says? I know that's how it works in Rape or Murder etc. Why not Robbery?