Cmon Academy ???

[myway]

All of these types of incidents can end just as soon as the appropriate legislative body ends the ability to file such lawsuits.

It is not good business sense to say that we protected a $500 item by paying a $10,000 lawsuit.

Now this is the most logical statement on the thread.

[Clay C]

Imagine this - Academy has no official policy about not attempting to detain shoplifters. An employee gets shot while trying to stop said shoplifter. Family of shot employee sues Academy for a zillion and wins. In the world of retail loss prevention, losing a few hundred dollars worth of merchandise is the lower risk option

All of these types of incidents can end just as soon as the appropriate legislative body ends the ability to file such lawsuits.

It is not good business sense to say that we protected a $500 item by paying a $10,000 lawsuit.

Yup. This right here. Academy is a business that makes business decisions.

This should be shocking to no one. The risk of an employee or shopper getting hurt trying to stop a shoplifter is far greater than the scenarios laid out in this thread. Therefore policy is set to counter the greatest risk.

[Raypo]

Wonder what the lawsuit would be if the thief free wheeled out of the store with gun and ammo and shot up the next store down?

N cues the store was also a victim of theft? I would say none. Again only my opinion which we all know is nothing when 12 random people are coming together to make a decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eaglegolfj]

So now we can just go to academy and ask to see a firearm and just turn around and walk out with it, oh and grab some ammo to match on the way out. Seems pretty dagum stupid if you ask me.

[Big Mike M]

I was leaving Home Depot yesterday and saw a man and women running through the parking lot pushing a shopping cart to their vehicle. It was full of what looked like Dewalt’s drills. Old man that worked there just walked through the lot and wrote down license plate number as they drove off. They are going to keep doing it without any fear of getting caught since the employees can’t do anything.

[Jason Fry]

The guy broke the rules and got fired for it. During my time with academy we stopped theives all the time but we never put hands on them and we actually had to see them conceal the products. Sounds like this guy just heard stop that guy and grabbed the person running. What if all the yelling caused people to run out of the store and he grabbed the wrong person? What if the theif decided to pull another gun out of his pocket and shoot the employee? Now I'm not saying I disagree with what he did, if I was in the same situation it would have been tempting to do the same. But you have to be prepared for the consequences of your actions.

Agree. I was an Academy manager. We stopped them if we could see them conceal, either live or on camera. Couldn't grab them, and couldn't pursue them out the door. Academy had a manager get killed in the 1990's chasing a customer in the parking lot over a pair of shoes. Since that time, pursuit outside the store is in violation of company policy.

[AntlerCollector]

So now we can just go to academy and ask to see a firearm and just turn around and walk out with it, oh and grab some ammo to match on the way out. Seems pretty dagum stupid if you ask me.

You and enough of your buddies do this and maybe they will rethink their policy

[DRT]

Let no good deed go unpunished.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[SwampRabbit]

Yep it is stupid.

It is stupid what people can get sued over... and so you end up with even more stupid policies to prevent stupid people from suing others because stupid people allow it. So stupid people are rewarded, and continue to act stupid because of it.

Just plain stupid.

[Huntsman27]

I am sure Academy like many others have developed their policy with input from legal counsel and based on their experiences and are doing what makes the most business sense. Many a retail employee have been injured or worse stopping or pursuing a shoplifter and even what may seem to be a somewhat minor injury can end up costing thousands of dollars in workers' comp costs not to mention civil suits over shoplifters that get injured during the apprehension. Even if a company wins a civil suit filed against them it would cost thousands of dollars to defend themselves. It sounds to me that Academy has evaluated their losses due to shoplifting compared to the risk of stopping someone and has determined it is more profitable to not pursue shoplifters.

[lk05077]

they need to give him a raise not fire him

[softpoint]

I have a personal friend who was fired for exactly the same. He tried to stop a thief from stealing tools at a Home Depot in Florida. Store told him it was policy because the theif might kill or injure the employee, and they didn't want the liability.

[Blitz]

All this talk is hilarious. We all are sitting here behind the comfort of our computers talking about what he should have and should'nt do. Policy this and policy that.

I work in an industry that has more regulations then employees.

Its easy to say when your not in the heat of the moment how he/she should react.

I watched my dad when I was a child grab a piece of broken glass out of mid air as it was twirling around from trying to break some bottles. Now, sitting in our living room drinking coffee, its easy to say that was a stupid decision. But when you are "reacting", its totally different.

I promise you this guy didn't wake up that morning and think, gee, how will I handle a shoplifter trying to bolt to the door with a .40 calibur handgun and several employees screaming "stop that guy".

Sometimes, we need to look at everything case by case.

[Jmh05]

A country where laws favor the criminals.......start giving somebody a rap on the beezer and maybe get a little respect around here.

[tradtiger]

Agree. I was an Academy manager. We stopped them if we could see them conceal, either live or on camera. Couldn't grab them, and couldn't pursue them out the door. Academy had a manager get killed in the 1990's chasing a customer in the parking lot over a pair of shoes. Since that time, pursuit outside the store is in violation of company policy.

There you go. That's the issue: employee life and safety is more important than merchandise. As far as guns, someone mentioned tightening firearm handling policy to require a driver's license exchanged before handing over a weapon, which would also be trigger-locked.

As a 20+year employee of Home Depot, I can tell you that thieves have gotten more and more brazen. We put things like generators in the overhead to prevent grab-and-go thefts. But it's hard to secure everything when so many are inclined to steal. Remember, that many of these folks are addicts and not stable individuals. Sales associates are not armed, trained or ex-Marines, for the most part, so policy needs to protect people over merchandise, while trying to safeguard the product as well as possible.

That said, the particular case of the Academy manager -- I believe -- should have been handled as a case-by-case situation in his favor for securing the greater good of the public, above and beyond store policy. Most policy is written to say that so-and-so MAY lead to termination, not that it SHALL require termination.