Academy Sports: What Are They Thinking?

[Watchdog]

I have to admit, I don't understand corporate thinking in this situation.

Academy Sports in Tallahassee, Florida has fired a manager who tackled a man who was stealing a gun and ammunition from the store.

Quoting briefly from a report by CBS News:

"A store manager who tackled a customer as he ran out of the store with a stolen gun and ammunition has been fired by Academy Sports, reports the CBS affiliate here, WCTV. Dean Crouch worked at the Academy Sports store in Tallahassee.

The National Rifle Association says Crouch is a 'hero.'"

I won't comment further on this for now, except to say that this seems to be one of those what's-wrong-with-this-picture scenarios.

Forum members who are interested can read the report by clicking here.

[johngalt]

I suspect that as usual, it is liability concerns. They lose much less in merchandise than in defending themselves against a lawsuit brought by a possibly injured thief.

[Scorpion520AZ]

"Firing" the man is pure corporate cowardice.

[Gaffer]

The guilty party here is the courts who are coddling these perps and making them feel untouchable. If the courts would not be so gerenous and treat these criminal as they should the corporationswould not be so afraid to do the right thing. It is a matter of Political Correctness run amuck. I did email the Academy Sports and told them I would not ever shop there again if they didn't give the employee his job back.

[Golddollar]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

Quoting briefly from a report by CBS News:

[I]"A store manager who tackled a customer as he ran out of the store with a stolen gun and ammunition has been fired by Academy Sports,

I think there is a significant inaccuracy in this report. A customer is someone who pays for goods. The person who was tackled is an alleged thief.

[Salty RI]

Back in the 60's a friend of mine had a part time job in a all night gas station, he got robbed and beat the guy with a baseball bat, he got fired, he was supposed to let the guy get away, a few days later he got another part time job in another gas station, he traded his bat for a piece of rebar.

Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk

[arjay]

As far as I know corporate policy regarding thieves is to be a good witness.They don't want injured(non security) employees,perps or bystanders.Thats far more expensive

[chief38]

What a Freaked-up world we live in hey?! 20 years ago they would have given him a medal and a bonus - today he's a "bad guy".

[ParadiseRoad]

Originally Posted by arjay

As far as I know corporate policy regarding thieves is to be a good witness.They don't want injured(non security) employees,perps or bystanders.Thats far more expensive

...and what is irritating is that their good...honest...regular customers foot the bill either way...

[500SNW]

Originally Posted by arjay

As far as I know corporate policy regarding thieves is to be a good witness.They don't want injured(non security) employees,perps or bystanders.Thats far more expensive

Call me strange, but rather than the loss of revenue for a single firearm, I see it as preventing a criminal from doing further harm with that gun and ammo. Who would the thief have robbed or killed shortly after obtaining the firearm? IMHO the employees firing might be a blessing in disguise. Who wants to work for a company with an attitude like that? There are still plenty of good folks who own businesses and will offer this upstanding citizen a job. He might even get an upgrade in the process.

[arjay]

It's also possible he was canned for allowing the thief to get his hands on a gun and a box of ammo at the same time.The chain stores I've dealt with are pretty cautious abou that

[wingriderz]

Originally Posted by Scorpion520AZ

"Firing" the man is pure corporate cowardice.

Yes for sure. Hes way better off going to work elsewhere

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by ParadiseRoad

...and what is irritating is that their good...honest...regular customers foot the bill either way...

Yes, but it's a SMALLER bill. It's just the way the corporate mind works.

Consider these examples:

#1 The story is that when Ford got dinged in court for the Pinto gas tank debacle, they initially said that they were going to appeal the verdict. A short time later they paid up. Why? Because somebody did the math that the costs of more litigation and the possibility of an even bigger punitive fine was more expensive than retooling the Pinto line to reverse or eliminate that machine screw. On paper, Ford were ahead, so they paid up.

#2 My aunt worked in debt recovery for the credit card section of a major UK bank. In the 80s CC fraud was rife, usually done by folk who opened accounts with subtle changes to their name and obtaining multiple cards they had no intention of ever paying on. This was taken to bank management who said, "Well, that may be so, but we measure business success by the number of our cards in circulation compared to our competitors. It's all about market share. Besides, bad debt is on a different ledger so it doesn't count".

This corporate think is why Academy have this shoplifter policy, losses are cheaper than lawsuits AND ARE ON A DIFFERENT LEDGER WITH NO PR EXPOSURE. Welcome to 21st century capitalism at its lunatic best.

[Wise_A]

Because tackling him creates a violent confrontation, endangering store employees and customers. Letting him go and calling the police leaves the fightin-bad-guys stuff to the professionals.

This is Working In Retail 101.

[ditrina]

Originally Posted by Wise_A

Because tackling him creates a violent confrontation, endangering store employees and customers. Letting him go and calling the police leaves the fightin-bad-guys stuff to the professionals.

This is Working In Retail 101.

45 years working in retail..
PERFECT answer..
The corporate idea ( policy ) is keep the employee safe and alive.

[cybermgk]

Originally Posted by Wise_A

Because tackling him creates a violent confrontation, endangering store employees and customers. Letting him go and calling the police leaves the fightin-bad-guys stuff to the professionals.

This is Working In Retail 101.

And a potential illegal gun in the hands of someone hell bent on using it (his own words). BECAUSE, that assumes The Police catch him, before he uses it for whatever mass murder he had planned.

So, you explain the rules and reasoning to the Manager. But fire him?

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by arjay

As far as I know corporate policy regarding thieves is to be a good witness.They don't want injured(non security) employees,perps or bystanders.Thats far more expensive

It is really that simple.

[cybermgk]

Originally Posted by arjay

It's also possible he was canned for allowing the thief to get his hands on a gun and a box of ammo at the same time.The chain stores I've dealt with are pretty cautious abou that

Read the story. He did NOT get both the ammo and gun there, just the gun. He had already stolen from another store earlier (and SURPRISE still not apprehended by the police).

[Weimar]

So, something that folks are missing is that - although corporate might think its cheaper to not have a lawsuit, if this guy used his stolen 40 cal and took it to a school and shot up some kids, imagine the bad PR.

I'd ask my lawyer (who I have found many times knows that common sense is a no-win and won't take your case), that we should claim that the PR of above case would have cost them tens of millions and he was wrongly defamed by being fired

[Okie21]

I understand he violated company policy. But why does this have to be set in stone here? He prevented a criminal from obtaining a firearm, which could have been used to commit a crime. I think there would be far less crime if more people did what this man did.
And to add insult to injury, the Academy Sports spokeswoman thanked the local PD and made no mention of the employee. Shame on Academy Sports.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

[ditrina]

Originally Posted by cybermgk

And a potential illegal gun in the hands of someone hell bent on using it (his own words). BECAUSE, that assumes The Police catch him, before he uses it for whatever mass murder he had planned.

So, you explain the rules and reasoning to the Manager. But fire him?

So what is the answer?? Let it go and the next employee in that situation ain't so lucky?
What happened is standard policy in all large operations, and is reviewed and signed by the employee during the initial employee indoctrination. Do I feel sorry for him...YUP.. but I'm more glad he is alive.

Oh yeah.. just as a side note, as a fine upstanding citizen was walking out the door with a TV in her arms I said excuse me Miss are you going to pay for that? Out of nowhere the car on the curb appeared the driver jumped out and pointed at least .75 caliber hand gun at me, or so it seemed. I backed up and she was gone.
Remember this was in 1977, back when that was the exception rather than today's norm of shooting just because of " I want your stuff "

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by cybermgk

So, you explain the rules and reasoning to the Manager. But fire him?

As a manager he is supposed to know.

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Sounds to me like he was in bad graces with them and this merely provided them with the excuse they needed to fire him.
Was this corporate "regulation" in writing? Corporations-like the military-are all too often adhocracies, making it up as they go along.

[hoc9sw]

I was talking to a friend who works at Wally World a few days ago about this same subject. They are forbidden, as non-security employees, from trying to physically stop a person in the store, and once the person has even a foot through the door on the way out, security can't do anything but call the police.

I can't imagine that Academy has a very different policy. And, if the employee was the only one behind the gun counter, his job was toast once he came out from behind it. Not knowing that detail, I only offer that as a point of reference.

Sad, but that's America today.

[Triathloncoach]

Let’s assume that a store employee see’s someone steal something. Let’s not even consider the employee was wrong and the customer did not steal.

How many of you are OK with a retail employee using physical force against you? They have no legal right.

Anyone other than a cop who puts a hand on me better be ready for me to vigorously defend myself. And then I press charges.

[Triathloncoach]

Prevention without retention. Call the cops.

[pharmer]

Originally Posted by ditrina

Out of nowhere the car on the curb appeared the driver jumped out and pointed at least .75 caliber hand gun at me, or so it seemed. I backed up and she was gone.
Remember this was in 1977, back when that was the exception rather than today's norm of shooting just because of " I want your stuff "

Let me guess, out front of the "2 Guys (from Harrison)" store. Joe

[cybermgk]

Originally Posted by Okie21

I understand he violated company policy. But why does this have to be set in stone here? He prevented a criminal from obtaining a firearm, which could have been used to commit a crime. I think there would be far less crime if more people did what this man did.
And to add insult to injury, the Academy Sports spokeswoman thanked the local PD and made no mention of the employee. Shame on Academy Sports.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Not could of. The suspect has told authorities they would see him on the news, implying he is/was going to kill a bunch.

[cybermgk]

Originally Posted by ditrina

So what is the answer?? Let it go and the next employee in that situation ain't so lucky?
What happened is standard policy in all large operations, and is reviewed and signed by the employee during the initial employee indoctrination. Do I feel sorry for him...YUP.. but I'm more glad he is alive.

Oh yeah.. just as a side note, as a fine upstanding citizen was walking out the door with a TV in her arms I said excuse me Miss are you going to pay for that? Out of nowhere the car on the curb appeared the driver jumped out and pointed at least .75 caliber hand gun at me, or so it seemed. I backed up and she was gone.
Remember this was in 1977, back when that was the exception rather than today's norm of shooting just because of " I want your stuff "

Originally Posted by LVSteve

As a manager he is supposed to know.

All, I can say, is I am REAL glad I don't work for some of you, with zero tolerance stances.

I don't argue he broke a likely company policy, nor why generally, it's a good policy to have for retail. I question the harsh response CONSIDERING all the facts.

The guy he tackled, had already stole from Cash America Pawn, earlier that day.

The suspect White, said “I stole and I admit to it,” White told police. "I will steal again when I get out of jail.”

White repeatedly said he would shoot someone, according to the police report, and that they’d see him on the evening news. “Just you wait and see,” White reportedly said.

And where White was released from jail on bond on July 6. Court documents indicate he is on “Supervised Mental Health Pre-Trial Release” and has been ordered to stay away from Academy Sports and Cash America Pawn.

Given recent events, where so many did NOT do anything, of which facilitated tragic events, it just seems harsh, stupid, overly rigid to fire this manager, when a plethora of other options could have happened. Straight to firing? No official reprimand, first, no unofficial reprimand. Nope, just fired. Many people are going to see his actions as heroic.

Now, imho, they seem to look like they want people to not act, that they want things like Parkland to happen?

[cybermgk]

Originally Posted by Triathloncoach

Let’s assume that a store employee see’s someone steal something. Let’s not even consider the employee was wrong and the customer did not steal.

How many of you are OK with a retail employee using physical force against you? They have no legal right.

Anyone other than a cop who puts a hand on me better be ready for me to vigorously defend myself. And then I press charges.

Please, let's not pretend, that theft of a handgun, is on the same level as theft of cosmetics.

[Golddollar]

Originally Posted by Okie21

I understand he violated company policy. But why does this have to be set in stone here? He prevented a criminal from obtaining a firearm, which could have been used to commit a crime. I think there would be far less crime if more people did what this man did.

And to take things further along in this scenario, we will all get blamed for any subsequently committed crime, because somewhere in the dim recesses of my memory I seem to remember someone justifying strict gun control declaring "Every illegal gun started out as a legal gun."

[DWalt]

Virtually all large retail establishments (including chains) have policies forbidding employees from challenging criminals as unintended bad things can happen when some employee tries to be a hero. And it also inspires other employees to resist merchandise theft, robbery, etc.

I was in a shoe store once when some punk kid did a grab and run with a pair of shoes. It wouldn't have been that difficult for some employee to stop him, but no one did. A clerk told me that policy was to just call the police and take no other action. They had him on video. The same clerk told me that such incidents happen several times a week. Never know when a punk has a gun or knife, and then someone could get hurt or killed. And that someone would probably end up suing the store.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by Triathloncoach

Let’s assume that a store employee see’s someone steal something. Let’s not even consider the employee was wrong and the customer did not steal.

How many of you are OK with a retail employee using physical force against you? They have no legal right.

Anyone other than a cop who puts a hand on me better be ready for me to vigorously defend myself. And then I press charges.

That's a good point. When I lived in Ohio, I remember reading about an event that occurred at a Best Buy in Cleveland.

As a customer was leaving, one of the yellow shirts demanded to see his receipt. The customer refused and walked out. The yellow shirt ran after him and physically restrained him. Police were called, lawsuits were filed. In the end Best Buy lost (I can't remember if it was false arrest or assault). Store employees can not do anything to prevent a person from leaving, nor search his property.

The customer was not accused of, nor suspected of stealing. He simply refused to comply with the yellow shirt's 'demands' as he was leaving.

[Step N. Mud]

So the next guy walks in and goes to the gun counter and ask to look and handle a gun. He says 'I'll take it' but not paying for it and casually walks out the door.

[Watchdog]

I'm thinking Mr. Crouch, seen here with his family, will get his job back. If he wants it. That, or he will receive a financial settlement from Academy Sports. If it were me, I might have to think twice about returning.

I'm of the opinion that workplace discipline should be progressive in nature, unless an employee has simply committed some unforgivable sin. Embezzling or something. I believe Mr. Crouch should have been given a warning, or even a suspension...but should not have been fired outright.

As someone else mentioned earlier, twenty years ago, we'd be calling him a hero and he'd probably get a promotion or some kind of reward. The police department would've probably commended him. But in today's litigious and oh-so-correct society, he's treated almost like a criminal, himself.

I admire him and wish him luck in whatever course of action he decides to take.

[Salty RI]

If I were him I would take the settlement, if he doesnt maybe in a few months they will find another reason to get rid of him.

Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk

[hoc9sw]

Originally Posted by Salty RI

If I were him I would take the settlement, if he doesnt maybe in a few months they will find another reason to get rid of him.

I once worked in an environment like that. They would secretly create a blacklist, and watch you for months. They loved to fire people the week of Thanksgiving or on Christmas Eve.

[nachogrande]

The view is different from under the bus. +1 for liability reasons, for injuries to the thief & for the employee??? Does insurance only cover injuries/loss of merch IF you give it up, ONLY???

[Rpg]

Originally Posted by arjay

It's also possible he was canned for allowing the thief to get his hands on a gun and a box of ammo at the same time.The chain stores I've dealt with are pretty cautious abou that

The cost of a workers compensation claim for an injured employee can be huge. It all comes out of the employer’s pocket in future premium increases.

The cost of injured customers can also be huge: liability insurance may cover it, but again the employer is on the hook for it in higher premiums.

Often, insurance policies are written with the proviso that employees aren’t to be security guards or cops in the store.

Failing to implement and enforce such policies can result in denial of liability and cancellation of the policy.

The employer did what it had to do in enforcing the policy by firing the hero.

[Badgerboy1]

Company management are full of gutless wonders. There is right, wrong and cowardice. They chose the last two.

[TripLeader]

Originally Posted by Triathloncoach

Let’s assume that a store employee see’s someone steal something. Let’s not even consider the employee was wrong and the customer did not steal.

How many of you are OK with a retail employee using physical force against you? They have no legal right.

Anyone other than a cop who puts a hand on me better be ready for me to vigorously defend myself. And then I press charges.

Store employees do have the legal right to stop someone whom they suspect of theft.

Here is an example of one law granting that authority:

Criminal restraint.
(a) Criminal restraint is knowingly and without legal authority restraining another person so as to interfere substantially with such person's liberty.

(b) Criminal restraint is a class A person misdemeanor.

(c) This section shall not apply to acts done in the performance of duty by any law enforcement officer of the state or any political subdivision thereof.

(d) Any merchant, or a merchant's agent or employee, who has probable cause to believe that a person has actual possession of and has wrongfully taken, or is about to wrongfully take merchandise from a mercantile establishment, may detain such person on the premises or in the immediate vicinity thereof, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable period of time for the purpose of investigating the circumstances of such possession. Such reasonable detention shall not constitute an arrest nor criminal restraint.

[arjay]

Originally Posted by Badgerboy1

Company management are full of gutless wonders. There is right, wrong and cowardice. They chose the last two.

No company exists to be heroes.They exist to turn a profit for the shareholders.If they don't, management and the board will be replaced.Thats just the reality of capitalism.

[Muss Muggins]

In some states . . .

Originally Posted by TripLeader

Store employees do have the legal right to stop someone whom they suspect of theft.

Here is an example of one law granting that authority:

Criminal restraint.
(a) Criminal restraint is knowingly and without legal authority restraining another person so as to interfere substantially with such person's liberty.

(b) Criminal restraint is a class A person misdemeanor.

(c) This section shall not apply to acts done in the performance of duty by any law enforcement officer of the state or any political subdivision thereof.

(d) Any merchant, or a merchant's agent or employee, who has probable cause to believe that a person has actual possession of and has wrongfully taken, or is about to wrongfully take merchandise from a mercantile establishment, may detain such person on the premises or in the immediate vicinity thereof, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable period of time for the purpose of investigating the circumstances of such possession. Such reasonable detention shall not constitute an arrest nor criminal restraint.

[hoc9sw]

There may be state laws that allow someone to chase down a thief. Great. BUT if the company (employer) does not want their employees doing that, they can put it in the policies the employee agrees to when they sign on.

It that sort of case, you agree that company limits trump everything else, if you want to work there. What is right is one thing, but if you agree to follow orders, either do it or be prepared to find another job.

If he was dismissed for cause, my (past) company would not even accept a resume from him. They wouldn't hire you if you had parking tickets or unpaid tolls.

[HOUSTON RICK]

The last thing corporate management wants are heroes. Employees are instructed to cooperate and reduce risk to the store, employees and customers. Insurance is to cover the losses. My sainted grandmother (a widow with 11 kids) closed a cash register on a would be robber of the ice cream parlor she worked in. That saved the cash, but she was shot in the neck, partially paralyzed and fired for her trouble. She never was able to work again. She died, in part, from complications of that wound about 20 years later. I was very young and do not remember whether she got workmen's comp, etc. Lesson learned. I wish that she would have just scooped over the cash. Her assailant disappeared into the nearby Cincinnati Zoo and was never caught and probably robbed someone else later.

[nachogrande]

Originally Posted by ladder13

It is really that simple.

Surely the EX employee had been told, during his orientation to just give it up in the event of a robbery. YES it goes against the grain, but is safer for employees/customers and CHEAPER all the way around for Academy. A don't have to like it, but it is what it is moment. Were they looking for a reason to get rid of him before, OR use him as an example???

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by hoc9sw

If he was dismissed for cause, my (past) company would not even accept a resume from him. They wouldn't hire you if you had parking tickets or unpaid tolls.

Yeah, but that's because many US employers still think that the scenario in "15 tons" should be the norm. There is an article on Bloomberg about an increasing number of employers think that continuous background checks are a good idea. Unless you are in something kid or defense related, I'm not feeling it.

[TripLeader]

More news.

Looks like all the public backlash forced Academy to re-hire the employee.

[nachogrande]

It sure beats a photo from a funeral of a mom & 2 fatherless kids. It could have gone much differently.

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Pretty easy to figure out really. Go after a shoplifter and the odds of you getting hurt go wayyyyy up, maybe even a catastrophic injury or death if the shoplifter is crazy and is armed. If that happens the old workers comp kicks in and the insurance company is on the hook for a tremendous amount of damages. In the real world insurance companies pretty much tell you what you gotta do or they won't cover you. Hate to tall ya guys but if I was working for someone and I saw somebody that I didn't konw was armed or not stealing my boss's property, I'd yell at him to stop and then call the police. I sure as hell wouldn't take a chance of getting injured saving someone else's property.
Now ponder the other situation-suppose you were working as a clerk at Academy and you were told that if you saw a shoplifter you are to do everything in your poser to stop the theft and apprehend the miscreant. My response to that directive would be a resounding **** that.
Is it right that it has come to this??? Right or wrong doesn't enter the equation here. The end game is for the employee to go home each night to his family. If he wants danger in his life protecting others go be a police officer.
Oh and the NRA is WRONG WRONG WRONG on this one.