Wendy's Employee Kills Robber

[BarryLee]

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/police-ga-fast-food-1279841.html

I’ve linked to an article about a robbery in Savannah, GA that resulted in the death of one of the robbers. The article is pretty brief, but they may flesh it out as details become available. Apparently the Wendy’s was closed and the employees were cleaning up. The two robbers entered forced the employees to the office and stole money. The robbers then left and one of the employees went outside with his personal firearm as one of the robbers pointed a gun at him and the employee shot killing the robber.

As I said the article is pretty brief as I post this and they may add more details, but right now a few observations.

1) From a self defense standpoint if the robbers had left why would the employee follow them outside? Does he open himself up for possible criminal prosecution?

2) The fact that the employee followed the robbers outside could also open him and Wendy’s up to litigation from the dead robbers family. I know it sounds ridiculous, but similar things have happened.

3) Wonder what if any action Wendy’s will take against the employee?

 

[MLeake]

The employee could very easily (and, for that matter, even honestly claim) that he wanted to get a license plate and description for the getaway car, when the robber spotted him and re-engaged.

Hopefully, the employee did not pursue with intent to engage, as that could cause him some problems.

Also hopefully, the employee gave only essential details, then requested to have a later meeting with the police and his lawyer.

 

[griz]

1. It may or may not be a good idea to follow the robbers out of the store, and a lot depends on why. Unless it can be shown the employee pursued with the intent of revenge then there is nothing to prosecute since no law requires you to stay in the store.

2. Again, only if it can be shown he wanted to kill the robber. If I was on the jury I would believe that Wendys has no obligation to provide a safely robbable store.

3. If Wendys has an "always comply" doctrine then the employee may be fired.

 

[Cindyann]

Going after the robber after he had left the store was probably not a brilliant idea, but like someone else said as long as no one can prove that the robber didn't re-engage him he should be in the clear. As far as the family suing...who knows I live in Georgia and the courts here give people money for everything!

 

[bkoll]

I would expect a civil lawsuit filed by the family. As P***ed off as the worker was they should have never gone outside after the robber. With all the adrenaline flowing it would be a natural response to try and stop someone who is negatively effecting others. Even though this worker did perhaps the wrong thing in the court systems eyes, things like this could help deter robbers if they know when they are leaving they may get shot at.

 

[nate45]

I would expect a civil lawsuit filed by the family.

I wouldn't, as long as the authorities rule the shooting justifiable. Not in Georgia at any rate.

A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under
the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force."

Georgia Senate Bill 396

Another state with protection from civil suits for justified shootings.

 

[C0untZer0]

Two things...

.

1) This supports my theory that a DGU seldom results in a criminal still at large.

2) I now have a craving for the Spicy Chicken sandwich combo - with a Frosty.


.

 

[pendennis]

Wendy's may or may not fire the employee. There's a story out about a Walgreen's employee who killed a perp trying to rob one of their drugstores. Walgreen's has a policy stating that employees may not be armed at work. The employee was subsequently fired, with no apparent recourse, since the policy was documented.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

1) From a self defense standpoint if the robbers had left why would the employee follow them outside? Does he open himself up for possible criminal prosecution?

For some strange reason, people have some sort of fascination with the "outside" as being some sort of magical boundary and it is not. Not to harp on the OP, just that he has brought up this notion of "outside" again which seems to be a common theme.

Just because the Wendy's had been robbed did not preclude the employees from ever going outside again. According to the article...

When the worker walked outside with his own weapon, police say one of the men pointed a weapon at him and he was shot and killed.

Assuming the description is correct for the order of events, the employee acted completely in self defense.

Given the sequence of events as described, it would not matter if the employee wanted revenge or not. He acted in self defense to the threat of lethal force which is legal.

With that said and from a person safety standpoint, following the robbers outside isn't a good idea. If the threat is gone, then the best way to preserve your own life is to not go and try to find it. In this case, the only thing the employee could do is recover Wendy's money and that isn't something worth risking one's life over. It wasn't like the robbers had kidnapped another employee and the armed employee was trying to save that person.

3. If Wendys has an "always comply" doctrine then the employee may be fired.

Absolutely and this is one of the reasons so many companies have an 'always comply' rule. There are plenty of idiots out there who can't hack the fact that they were bested and feel the need to pursue bad guys even after they were already safe, hence ending up in a second and unnecessary situation of danger, for which if injured whilst still on the clock, becomes a workers comp issue that Wendy's has to cover.

1) This supports my theory that a DGU seldom results in a criminal still at large.

No, it really doesn't. As you noted in the other thread, there isn't any database of this information and you are basing your results only on the positive results that turn up in the media. The media is slow to report on non-exciting results and so your sample is extremely biased. In this case, you had 50% of the bad guys escape.

Now if your theory was that media-reported DGU seldom results in a criminal still at large, you might be on to something, but you will still have to compile a fairly exhaustive database in order to see if the hypothesis is correct.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=472466&highlight=dgu

 

[teeroux]

1) From a self defense standpoint if the robbers had left why would the employee follow them outside? Does he open himself up for possible criminal prosecution?

Last I checked that employee has a right to go outside in public the same as the robbers do.

 

[Musketeer]

http://ir.wendys.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=67548&p=irol-govconduct#3

No weapons policy. The employee will be fired.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Better to be fired today than buried tomorrow.

 

[Dwight55]

On Karl Road in Columbus, Ohio, . . . several years ago, . . . similar incident happened, . . . it was a Wendy's also.

The place closed for investigation, . . . has been boarded up since.

I never did find out what happened to the shooter, . . . just know that the robber wound up with gophers and earth worms delivering his mail.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[MLeake]

Musketeer, I read the policy you linked to. It actually reads, "or, as otherwise authorized by law" in the weapon section, after saying no "illegal weapons."

Most places, those phrases are code for: ok with concealed carry permit.

 

[C0untZer0]

People used to tell kids to stay in school otherwise they'd end up digging ditches...

Now you hafta tell your kids to stay in school otherwise they'll be robbed at gunpoint at whatever fast food joint they're unfortunate enough to end up at...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Better to be fired today than buried tomorrow.

Sure, but this Wendy's employee need not have dishcharged his weapon. The threat left the store. He could have remained safe and sound inside and kept his job, assuming he will be fired for this.

It is one thing to defend your life during the course of a robbery as it happens, which in such a case I would totally agree with you, but that didn't happen in this case.

Now you hafta tell your kids to stay in school otherwise they'll be robbed at gunpoint at whatever fast food joint they're unfortunate enough to end up at...

Fast food enterprises are very numerous across the country. There are something like 175,000 chain stores and more than 50,000 sole proprietor stores. Combined, they employ over 1% of the US population. That is a lot of places and a lot of people. However, fast food places aren't all that likely to be robbed, although such robberies make the news because they are places where we all go. Something like 44% of all robberies happen on the street and less than 16% at places like convenient stores and fast food eateries. You are more likely to have a home invasion than you are to be robbed while working at a fast food place.
http://www.crimedoctor.com/robbery1.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=Mw...e&q=types of robberies by percentage?&f=false
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html

 

[Gehrhard]

The threat may have left the room they were brought to but it was not gone from the victims. I too would have left it, carefully, gun drawn.

Leaving the rest of the staff behind me, I would want to determine if the threat was gone. I would want to select the advantageous position in case they were coming back. Not worry about others. Find concealment and cover. Gather intelligence. My life. My ground. My terms. Risk? Less. And absolutely NOT gambling.

 

[C0untZer0]

Wouldn't the safest thing have been to try to bar the door, take cover if possible, but if not - just cover the door with your weapon?

 

[jgcoastie]

Hopefully, the victim/employee and/or his lawyer are smart enough to consider this as justification for leaving the (presumably) safe building.

The employee could very easily (and, for that matter, even honestly claim) that he wanted to get a license plate and description for the getaway car, when the robber spotted him and re-engaged.

 

[teeroux]

Sure, but this Wendy's employee need not have dishcharged his weapon. The threat left the store. He could have remained safe and sound inside and kept his job, assuming he will be fired for this.

Really?! The inside was just robbed. Not to safe if you ask me. Its bad enough a person has to put up with being robbed but to have folks say that because you were robbed you are somehow less entitled to the dirt bag robbers is just beyond me. The robbers can leave but you can't is what your saying.

So if a gunman shoots up the mall and then tries to leave, you can't leave also because you might run into the gunman again?!