CVS Now Hiring -- 'Wuss Surrender Babies' Preferred; Vet loses Job After Stopping Robbery

[martybegan]

Thanks for the update, Tipsy!

I guess CVS is allowing them to do whatever they want due to 'white guilt'?!

Let's assume he locked the door with a key, so now these punks have no way out. First thing that happens is that the one he is not holding pulls out his gun and kills this guy. Secondly, this kid with the gun now finds another employee to open the door, killing a few more people in the process. CVS in such a scenario would be liable for the deaths of any patrons or employees other that the "hero" who caused all of these people to die. This is the reason it's just easier to let the punks go and turn the video over to the police. The vast majority of the time the punks are sitting in jail within 24 hours.

That is condemnation of our current legal system, not of someone trying to do the right thing.

But the "I can't help myself, but government can" mentality is the issue with progressives. Except of course when they want to bully their political opponents, then they grow a pair.

It actually has much more to do with civil law and private companies wanting to avoid being sued for millions of dollars.

You didn't counter what I said at all.

Trying to do the right thing is the wrong thing if it backfires. Companies have policies to protect themselves. This is why they don't want employees going after bad guys. This really is quite simple. You must have watched too many Dirty Harry movies as a kid.

When you equate trying to stop a shoplifter to going "Dirty Harry", you are the perfect example of the wussification of america and world in general.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He violated a policy, it is really that simple. He violated the basic principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and Vigilante Justice threatens all justice.

We don't give up the right to apprehend criminals to the police, we delegate it to them. People still retain the right to protect their property and the property of their employer.
It's vigilantism when you mete out PUNISHMENT outside of the legal system, not if you apprehend a person FOR the legal system.

Work for the man, cash his checks, obey his rules. Clear?

Well ain't we just the purdy-est little lemming.

Learn to read an Org Chart.

 

[martybegan]

He violated a policy, it is really that simple. He violated the basic principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and Vigilante Justice threatens all justice.

We don't give up the right to apprehend criminals to the police, we delegate it to them. People still retain the right to protect their property and the property of their employer.
It's vigilantism when you mete out PUNISHMENT outside of the legal system, not if you apprehend a person FOR the legal system.

Work for the man, cash his checks, obey his rules. Clear?

Well ain't we just the purdy-est little lemming.

Learn to read an Org Chart.

Your point?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He violated a policy, it is really that simple. He violated the basic principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and Vigilante Justice threatens all justice.

We don't give up the right to apprehend criminals to the police, we delegate it to them. People still retain the right to protect their property and the property of their employer.
It's vigilantism when you mete out PUNISHMENT outside of the legal system, not if you apprehend a person FOR the legal system.

Work for the man, cash his checks, obey his rules. Clear?

Well ain't we just the purdy-est little lemming.

Learn to read an Org Chart.

Your point?

Life, and employers, have rules. Obey them or find yourself out on the street.

 

[Arianrhod]

Since the initial report the man got his job back.

Good news!

My guess is the company lawyers jumped in and said "What if he'd gotten killed? His family would have sued us! We can't have that!"

Merchandise is insured and none of it, even diamonds (much less CVS goods), is worth a human life.

 

[ogibillm]

He violated a policy, it is really that simple. He violated the basic principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and Vigilante Justice threatens all justice.

We don't give up the right to apprehend criminals to the police, we delegate it to them. People still retain the right to protect their property and the property of their employer.
It's vigilantism when you mete out PUNISHMENT outside of the legal system, not if you apprehend a person FOR the legal system.

cvs has decided that the safety of their employees is worth more than the shoplifters steal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Since the initial report the man got his job back.

Good news!

My guess is the company lawyers jumped in and said "What if he'd gotten killed? His family would have sued us! We can't have that!"

Merchandise is insured and none of it, even diamonds (much less CVS goods), is worth a human life.

Lawyers set the policy, the same with banks and other major chains, long ago. It's to protect the employees. Save your John Wayne hero shit for your days off.

 

[ogibillm]

Let's assume he locked the door with a key, so now these punks have no way out. First thing that happens is that the one he is not holding pulls out his gun and kills this guy. Secondly, this kid with the gun now finds another employee to open the door, killing a few more people in the process. CVS in such a scenario would be liable for the deaths of any patrons or employees other that the "hero" who caused all of these people to die. This is the reason it's just easier to let the punks go and turn the video over to the police. The vast majority of the time the punks are sitting in jail within 24 hours.

That is condemnation of our current legal system, not of someone trying to do the right thing.

But the "I can't help myself, but government can" mentality is the issue with progressives. Except of course when they want to bully their political opponents, then they grow a pair.

It actually has much more to do with civil law and private companies wanting to avoid being sued for millions of dollars.

You didn't counter what I said at all.

Trying to do the right thing is the wrong thing if it backfires. Companies have policies to protect themselves. This is why they don't want employees going after bad guys. This really is quite simple. You must have watched too many Dirty Harry movies as a kid.

When you equate trying to stop a shoplifter to going "Dirty Harry", you are the perfect example of the wussification of america and world in general.

because nobody has ever fired shots at a shoplifter...

 

[JOSweetHeart]

The best way for evil to triumph is for good to stand there and not do a thing. That vet, to me, deserves another medal.

God bless you and him always!!!

Holly

 

[martybegan]

We don't give up the right to apprehend criminals to the police, we delegate it to them. People still retain the right to protect their property and the property of their employer.
It's vigilantism when you mete out PUNISHMENT outside of the legal system, not if you apprehend a person FOR the legal system.

Work for the man, cash his checks, obey his rules. Clear?

Well ain't we just the purdy-est little lemming.

Learn to read an Org Chart.

Your point?

Life, and employers, have rules. Obey them or find yourself out on the street.

How Fascist of you.

 

[martybegan]

He violated a policy, it is really that simple. He violated the basic principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and Vigilante Justice threatens all justice.

We don't give up the right to apprehend criminals to the police, we delegate it to them. People still retain the right to protect their property and the property of their employer.
It's vigilantism when you mete out PUNISHMENT outside of the legal system, not if you apprehend a person FOR the legal system.

cvs has decided that the safety of their employees is worth more than the shoplifters steal.

I have a feeling CVS would start firing people if too many shoplifters started impacting their bottom line.

 

[martybegan]

That is condemnation of our current legal system, not of someone trying to do the right thing.

But the "I can't help myself, but government can" mentality is the issue with progressives. Except of course when they want to bully their political opponents, then they grow a pair.

It actually has much more to do with civil law and private companies wanting to avoid being sued for millions of dollars.

You didn't counter what I said at all.

Trying to do the right thing is the wrong thing if it backfires. Companies have policies to protect themselves. This is why they don't want employees going after bad guys. This really is quite simple. You must have watched too many Dirty Harry movies as a kid.

When you equate trying to stop a shoplifter to going "Dirty Harry", you are the perfect example of the wussification of america and world in general.

because nobody has ever fired shots at a shoplifter...

The person who recently did that was arrested.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It actually has much more to do with civil law and private companies wanting to avoid being sued for millions of dollars.

You didn't counter what I said at all.

Trying to do the right thing is the wrong thing if it backfires. Companies have policies to protect themselves. This is why they don't want employees going after bad guys. This really is quite simple. You must have watched too many Dirty Harry movies as a kid.

When you equate trying to stop a shoplifter to going "Dirty Harry", you are the perfect example of the wussification of america and world in general.

because nobody has ever fired shots at a shoplifter...

The person who recently did that was arrested.

The system works, no one was harmed it seems, and today everyone is pictured on security cameras. Let the crook go, post his picture on line with a small reward and let trained LE with policies on the use of force make the arrest.

 

[martybegan]

You didn't counter what I said at all.

Trying to do the right thing is the wrong thing if it backfires. Companies have policies to protect themselves. This is why they don't want employees going after bad guys. This really is quite simple. You must have watched too many Dirty Harry movies as a kid.

When you equate trying to stop a shoplifter to going "Dirty Harry", you are the perfect example of the wussification of america and world in general.

because nobody has ever fired shots at a shoplifter...

The person who recently did that was arrested.

The system works, no one was harmed it seems, and today everyone is pictured on security cameras. Let the crook go, post his picture on line with a small reward and let trained LE with policies on the use of force make the arrest.

Wuss, government stooge, coward.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Trying to do the right thing is the wrong thing if it backfires. Companies have policies to protect themselves. This is why they don't want employees going after bad guys. This really is quite simple. You must have watched too many Dirty Harry movies as a kid.

When you equate trying to stop a shoplifter to going "Dirty Harry", you are the perfect example of the wussification of america and world in general.

because nobody has ever fired shots at a shoplifter...

The person who recently did that was arrested.

The system works, no one was harmed it seems, and today everyone is pictured on security cameras. Let the crook go, post his picture on line with a small reward and let trained LE with policies on the use of force make the arrest.

Wuss, government stooge, coward.

A personal attack is not a rebuttal; it is a sign of ignorance and/or the actor's lack of education and inability in developing a thoughtful or thought provoking response.

 

[martybegan]

When you equate trying to stop a shoplifter to going "Dirty Harry", you are the perfect example of the wussification of america and world in general.

because nobody has ever fired shots at a shoplifter...

The person who recently did that was arrested.

The system works, no one was harmed it seems, and today everyone is pictured on security cameras. Let the crook go, post his picture on line with a small reward and let trained LE with policies on the use of force make the arrest.

Wuss, government stooge, coward.

A personal attack is not a rebuttal; it is a sign of ignorance and/or the actor's lack of education and inability in developing a thoughtful or thought provoking response.

I've already stated my position on this, the personal attack is just for flavoring.