7-Eleven hands down unthinkable punishment to clerk after she shoots knife-wielding thug who attacked, strangled her

The Blaze ^ | November 19, 2025 | Dave Urbanski

[flamberge]

She made a choice, probably the right choice, but rules is rules and 7-11 cannot risk leniency on this one.

I have run out of patience with the idea that "rules are rules" (and must be followed).

That presumes that the people who make the rules have our best interests at heart. They don't. The discrepancy is bad enough that some rules simply cannot be allowed to stand.

If a business forbids the lawful possession of weapons or their lawful use in self-defense, then that business must be held liable for any injury to employees or customers as a result of a criminal attack.

Let's just see what 7-11 can risk under those rules.

[ealgeone]

Sue them for not providing a safe and protected work environment.

[gitmo]

Actually, she was working 11 PM to 7 AM at 7-11.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

7-11 had always had a no weapons policy...I support her right to protect herself but she did violate multiple policies that led to her having to use her gun.

This post made me chuckle! Who ever thought someone with with a screen name like "gunnut" would defend a poorly thought out corporate policy over a 25-year old woman's natural right to self-defense! What a shill!!!

[blueyon]

She might have a lawsuit on her hands. While the law is not clear about having 2 people working night hours - There are things the store must do for night time employees. Glass at cashiers desk, mandatory check ins, etc. The OSHA act of 1970 could come into play here. Heck if there were any violations by 7-11, she might be able to own the store soon!

[ridesthemiles]

YUP-—I HOPE SHE SUES THEM FOR PLACING HER IN A VERY UNSAFE CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT-—AND DOING SO DELIBERATELY

[Captain Walker]

I blame our litigious society.

I think it's our new 401(k): lawsuits and lotteries.

[kosciusko51]

Yeah, it’s the 99% of the lawyers that give the rest a bad name.

[discostu]

No, it doesn’t presume the rules have OUR best interests at heart. It presumes the rules have a benefit to the rule maker. In this case probably the insurance company that 7-11 pays that doesn’t want to have to deal with the down stream effects of if an employee trying to defend themselves misses and kills a customer.

The company has private property rights. Your right to bear arms ends at somebody else’s property line.

7-11 (and McDonalds, and Circle-K, and Burger King, and Exxon... really EVERYBODY has these rules) already risks under those liability rules. And their insurance companies and lawyers all say the math works better if employees aren’t armed. And now 7-11 HAS TO fire her to make sure they don’t “encourage” employees to blow off that rule, and screw up that math. Hence, rules are rules. Sucks for her, but not that great a job, and I’m sure she’ll be OK.

[EastTexasTraveler]

Never ever walk in a 7-11 again.

[Rummyfan]

Well, clerking at a 7-11 is not exactly a great career path anyway. I suppose 7-11 management feels that she should have let the perp kill her.

[SuperLuminal]

Anyone who works from midnight to 7 A.M. in a 7-11 had better be armed and trained...

She is headed for a big payday from the 7-11, IMHO...

[CodeToad]

She needs to sue 7-11 for the violent work environment that led to her assault.

[Timmy]

Columbia, MO?

[Retain Mike]

"They said that they were going to separate from employment because of a violation of policy,"

I like the quote that says, “Bureaucrats cherish the regulations they create from laws, as another person cherishes prize rose bushes. They would never ask the question about whether what they are doing makes sense given the situation and there is no one around to answer the question anyway”.

[Bigg Red]

Here is her GoFundMe page:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-stephanie-fired-after-selfdefense

[AlaskaErik]

We have a local convenience store chain that not only allows employees to carry a firearm but encourages it. Open carry is also fine. I don’t recall ever seeing any stories about a robbery at that chain.

[mowowie]

White hen made really good sub sandwiches believe it or not.
I miss them too...

[gunnut]

She has a right to self defense but she should not have escalated the confrontation in my opinion. Let the guy steal what he wants, it’s not her stuff and the company did not want her risking her life to stop him.

Only after she intervened did it escalate to a point that it became violent. They could have fired her for any of those actions not just the firearm.

I am not going to get into a confrontation with anyone over property, especially someone else’s property especially if they don’t care about it. I will defend human life up to and including using deadly force but I hope I would be able to keep myself out of those situations.

Should she be fired for defending her life, should they have a policy that clerks can’t have a firearm to protect themselves especially on the graveyard shift, absolutely not. But….she did not need to risk her life over a few burritos and a counterfeit bill.

[gunnut]

It was and probably still is to not confront a criminal. If they want to take the whole store, let them. It is their stuff and they don’t want it defended at any risk of confrontation. In this case it sounds like he was trying to steal some burritos. He hands her the fake $100, she says I am sorry I cannot accept this and hopefully he leaves without paying.

She confronted him and he got angry and she refused to give him the counterfeit bill back. They don’t care about their stuff, it’s not worth her life to defend it.