Sporting Goods Store Employees Fired for Trying to Stop a Thief From Stealing a Pistol

Red State ^ | 01/01/2024 | Jeff Charles

[SeekAndFind]

In the latest example of corporate stupidity, three sporting goods employees were fired for chasing a man who stole a pistol. Apparently, trying to stop someone from stealing a deadly weapon is against company policy.

This is yet another story in which a major company punishes employees for trying to protect it from entitled thugs who think they have the right to take what they want.

Michelle Sutton, along with two other unidentified workers at the Academy Sports + Outdoors in Metairie, Louisiana, said that the shoplifting incident happened Dec. 16.

The sales associates said that they thought they were about to make a sale and were showing a customer a pistol, when he took off with the firearm.

Sutton, who was working as a team lead at the store, said once she received word on her radio, she immediately dropped what she was doing and jumped into action.

"I just took off," Sutton told local TV news station WGNO. "I knew I needed some form of way to help the police."

Four days later, Sutton said the store fired her and the two other employees for trying to stop the thief. “Sutton said that they were let go due to Academy Sports + Outdoors policy on loss prevention, which states that employees are not allowed to chase or physically restrain a fleeing person suspected of theft,” according to the report.

Sutton criticized the store’s decision in a conversation with a local news outlet, arguing that she and her former colleagues were not properly trained.

“There’s no clarification on getting [the suspect’s] location for police,” Sutton said. “I know my store director had said that they want you to be able to get the make and model of a vehicle, you know, maybe a direction in which way the vehicle went.”

In this case, Sutton says the suspect wasn’t in a vehicle.

...

“Every store that sells firearms, especially pistols that are concealable, need to have clear policy,” Sutton said. “They need to have extra training. They need to prepare for the unexpected.”

Clothing company Lululemon came under fire last year for firing employees for violating a similar policy. During a wave of organized shoplifting operations in Atlanta, the company terminated two employees for – get this – talking back to thieves who were looting the store. Even scolding thieves was too much for Lululemon.

The looters had hit the same outlet a dozen times prior, but this time two female employees had had enough, with assistant manager Jennifer Ferguson telling them, “No, no, no, you can march back out.” The looters were undeterred, however, and knowing that they probably faced no consequences in today’s world, simply came back for more. “Seriously? Get out,” the frustrated former employee said.

“Chill, b–tch, shut your ass up,” one of the robbers responds. The women watch the thieves get in a getaway car but never tried to physically intervene.

So why did they get fired? For daring to speak to the robbers, and for calling the police…Which is against company policy. No, I’m not kidding:

“We are not supposed to get in the way. You kind of clear path for whatever they’re going to do,” Ferguson told 11Alive.

“And then, after it’s over, you scan a QR code. And that’s that. We’ve been told not to put it in any notes, because that might scare other people. We’re not supposed to call the police, not really supposed to talk about it.”

JUST IN: Lululemon employees confirm they were FIRED FOR CALLING THE POLICE on thieves ransacking store.

pic.twitter.com/2uRyS6mCYm— Mike Sperrazza (@MikeASperrazza) May 26, 2023

These policies, combined with local and state governments that essentially tell criminals they will not face consequences if they rob and steal, are a recipe for disaster. They reveal a disturbing inclination to protect criminals, even if it means punishing their victims or people trying to stop the theft.

Then, the people supporting these policies wonder why the crime rate is so high. Or perhaps they don’t actually care.

[Cobra64]

These establishments do not deserve my patronage.

[Leaning Right]

> These establishments do not deserve my patronage. <

And they don’t deserve to have any decent employees. So maybe those stores should hire bums and drug addicts right off the street. See how that works out.

[griffin]

Scratch Academy from getting any more of my business.

Jack these retailer’s insurance rates so high they can’t afford to remain in business. It’s obvious they have no desire to protect their assets since insurance will cover it.

[Tired of Taxes]

“Sutton said that they were let go due to Academy Sports + Outdoors policy on loss prevention, which states that employees are not allowed to chase or physically restrain a fleeing person suspected of theft,”

This is not a new policy. Six years ago, I worked for a store with this policy.

Retail workers have been killed chasing after thieves. Sometimes, lawsuits are filed against the store when the thief is injured.

So, not even the store detectives would chase after thieves. They'd merely take video and photos and hand the evidence over to police.

[vpintheak]

My favorite gun & ammo store in Fairbanks has the employees open carrying. It would be dang near a death sentence for any fool to try to steal anything there.

[Tired of Taxes]

A few examples from a quick search on FR:

Employee killed trying to prevent liquor store robbery in West Covina
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4188445/posts

California Home Depot employee shot, killed trying to stop suspected shoplifter
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4146828/posts

Employee killed while confronting shoplifter taking ammunition
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4118337/posts

[Jumper]

Great. I think any criminal knowing might just pocket some ammo, ask to a pistol, load it and order the employees help him carry out the entire display case and load their truck.... Academy wouldn’t have cause to fire anyone.

[jonrick46]

The reason for these no-touch shoplifter rules is because of the insurance companies. They will charge companies high rates if there is activity that increases the chances that an employee is injured by a shoplifter. These criminals pack knives and guns which can do physical damage requiring high medical costs to save an employee's life. Only the police have the necessary medical insurance to confront these criminals.

In Japan, convenience stores across the nation carry small orange orbs called bohan yo kara boru (anticrime color balls).

They’re paintballs — plastic spheres filled with brightly colored liquid pigment kept on hand in case of a stickup or a shoplifting crime. The idea is to lob one after a robber and mark him to improve the chance of an arrest.

To increase the chances of hitting a moving target they aim at the perp's feet causing the balls to shatter on impact and release their contents in a radius as wide as 30 feet.

I say, if you can, hit them in the head!

[immadashell]

The Catch 22 here is set a policy that says DO NOT PURSUE. But the employee knows there is a higher degree of the risk of being laid off since the company is losing money!

[Mark17]

load it and order the employees help him carry out the entire display case and load their truck....

I was kind of wondering the same thing. What is to stop them from stealing every weapon they have?

[takebackaustin]

“These establishments do not deserve my patronage.”

If we don’t support retailers who continue to sell firearms and especially handguns and those scary-looking rifles, the many DEI pressure groups will have won.

Not many big general sporting goods companies are left that do. Dick’s gave in and now is the darling of wall street even though its financials are worse. Academy continues selling self-defense firearms after being sued about and blamed for the Uvalde school attack.

Hopefully when the news cycle dies down Academy will quietly rehire these good folks the way Home Depot did, and look for better lawyers and insurance. After Uvalde I can’t imagine Academy’s board wouldn’t think that letting a firearm go out with a criminal isn’t different than basketball shoes.

Academy stores are in conservative states, where they would stand a better chance in court. Maybe what this situation and the Uvalde situation call for is those states (or Congress) passing laws relieving tort liability and providing public compensation for injuries (workman’s comp?) sustained protecting against gun crimes. It would be a more sensible crime fighting expense than most.

[sauropod]

.

[Samurai_Jack]

I know it’s not a popular opinion in this forum. But it’s probably the corporate policy being enforced here. There is a reason these employees are released for protecting merchandise from theft. We’ve got to use our brains here and think this through. The path of least resistance is to get out of the way and let the police do their job. That keeps the employees and the customers in the safest position. That’s who we’re protecting here. An employee who offers resistance, presents an unpredictable risk factor and, regardless the outcome, makes the already volatile situation more dangerous. The least risk option to protect lives and safety is to ignore the protecting ‘property’ part. And step out of the way. Merchandise is insured for dissipation, property can be replaced, repaired, restored and even improved. People generally cannot, and that’s where the insurance risk resides.

There is a presumption that there’s an effective law enforcement infrastructure in place. But the corruption of the prosecutorial system is a whole different story.

[Delta 21]

I own my own store. You will not be cottled like this if I see you stealing from me inside my private property.

[zeestephen]

Re: "Apparently, trying to stop someone from stealing a deadly weapon is against company policy."

Of course it is against company policy!

They tell you it is against company policy in orientation and with annual updates.

If your employee is injured or killed, the employee or the family will sue the company.

If the criminal is injured or killed, the criminal or the family will sue the company.

[Mark17]

The Catch 22 here is set a policy that says DO NOT PURSUE.

That’s some catch, that catch 22. 😆😂😄😊

[fella]

Sounds like a story line rejected by the producers of the film “Idiocracy” for being to idiotic.