Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WCAX Vermont)   Good deed punished. But he got hired right away by an employer who values integrity over policy   (wcax.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Employment, Theft, 20-year-old Essex resident, Hannaford supermarket, Copyright, part-tie volunteer firefighter, All rights reserved, Amir Shedyak  
•       •       •

7670 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Sep 2020 at 4:26 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



51 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-19 4:35:01 AM  
The dude is lucky he didn't get shot.
 
2020-09-19 4:37:37 AM  
Ah, part time firefighter. You couldn't out run him.
 
2020-09-19 4:40:27 AM  
I hope the new job is better than the old one. I'm tired of evil winning these days.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
 
2020-09-19 4:44:00 AM  
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil Bad is for good law abiding men to do nothing.

there fix it for you since we are talking about stealing a purse.
 
2020-09-19 5:25:09 AM  
Pretty standard liability policy at any retail store. Not saying I agree with it, but if something had happened the store could have been held liable, or at least mired in expensive legal proceedings. So, to my mind, these policies are essentially a symptom of our farked up system.

I was robbed at gunpoint once. Gave the fellow everything he demanded (no cash, but 30ish digital scales) and he went on his way. The hilarious part was, having been so thoroughly trained and experienced in retail by that point, that when he was walking out the door I said, cheerfully, "Have a nice day!" Still makes me laugh, 15 years later LOL
 
2020-09-19 5:25:34 AM  
"It is not uncommon at all for employers to discourage employees from laying hands on customers," said Pietro Lynn

lh3.googleusercontent.comView Full Size

           "PLEASE... JUST LET US PAY FOR THE GROUND BEEF!"
 
2020-09-19 5:28:20 AM  

wildcardjack: Ah, part time firefighter. You couldn't out run him.


More likely a habit of disassociating himself from the potential for death.
 
2020-09-19 6:08:56 AM  
I used to work for state workers compensation. The happy stories make the news. I saw plenty of cases where the noble employee ended up permanently maimed trying to stop petty theft.
 
2020-09-19 6:30:58 AM  

Golden Brown Delicious: Pretty standard liability policy at any retail store. Not saying I agree with it, but if something had happened the store could have been held liable, or at least mired in expensive legal proceedings. So, to my mind, these policies are essentially a symptom of our farked up system.

I was robbed at gunpoint once. Gave the fellow everything he demanded (no cash, but 30ish digital scales) and he went on his way. The hilarious part was, having been so thoroughly trained and experienced in retail by that point, that when he was walking out the door I said, cheerfully, "Have a nice day!" Still makes me laugh, 15 years later LOL


That last part sounds like Apu talking to his shrink
 
2020-09-19 6:47:54 AM  
"It is not uncommon at all for employers to discourage employees from laying hands on customers," said Pietro Lynn, a local attorney who is not involved in the case. He says it makes sense for a company like Hannaford to not want their employees interfering because an injury of the employee, customer, or other liability issues can be expensive.

That's all you really have to know about it.

/The only thing that want in the paper about them is weekly circular
 
2020-09-19 7:13:48 AM  
derpes_simplex:

That last part sounds like Apu talking to his shrink


HA
 
2020-09-19 7:27:35 AM  
Just checking in to complain that the late Richard Jewell hasn't gotten his Presidential Medal of Freedom award yet.

Suggest mail/lobbying Trump to suggest he simply award it for a job well done, preventing untold casualties at the Olympic Park bombing by alertly finding the weapon and helping to clear people away from the area, and for him to let commenters point out, as they will have to, the journalism and FBI failures that sadly followed.
 
2020-09-19 7:42:56 AM  
The part-tie volunteer firefighter ...

Part-tie?  I think they mean Part-Thai.
Glad I could help.
 
2020-09-19 7:55:51 AM  
Seen the prices at Hannaford?  Seen the wages at a grocery store?  Who's stealing from who?

Let him go and send him with extra
 
2020-09-19 7:56:28 AM  
Here is the thing.  If a store celebrates this act, then the next employee who tries to do it and gets permanently maimed can sue the store and say that he thought it was expected of him to do it and part of his job.  He then would get a big pay day.  Store has to do this.  They don't think badly of this guy, blame the lawyers.
 
2020-09-19 7:58:47 AM  

PaceyWhitter: Here is the thing.  If a store celebrates this act, then the next employee who tries to do it and gets permanently maimed can sue the store and say that he thought it was expected of him to do it and part of his job.  He then would get a big pay day.  Store has to do this.  They don't think badly of this guy, blame the lawyers.


Yeah, it's lucky for him that the store didn't decide to just execute him on the spot!

No, the store doesn't "have" to do this.  Insurance will probably require it to have a policy against actively stopping crime.  That policy doesn't have to be backed by immediate firing.
 
2020-09-19 7:58:47 AM  

Nidiot: I hope the new job is better than the old one. I'm tired of evil winning these days.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-19 8:05:29 AM  

Dork Gently: PaceyWhitter: Here is the thing.  If a store celebrates this act, then the next employee who tries to do it and gets permanently maimed can sue the store and say that he thought it was expected of him to do it and part of his job.  He then would get a big pay day.  Store has to do this.  They don't think badly of this guy, blame the lawyers.

Yeah, it's lucky for him that the store didn't decide to just execute him on the spot!

No, the store doesn't "have" to do this.  Insurance will probably require it to have a policy against actively stopping crime.  That policy doesn't have to be backed by immediate firing.


Okay, the store doesn't have to do it but if they don't it will be very expensive for them.  You say they can get insurance, but insurance is going to either not cover the store, or write a policy that would not pay out in this instance.

Do you really think that the store just supports people robbing them and is upset that this guy tried to stop it?
 
2020-09-19 8:14:16 AM  
I'm ok with him he erring fired. Could have been injured. He's a liability.
 
2020-09-19 8:25:52 AM  

PaceyWhitter: Dork Gently: PaceyWhitter: Here is the thing.  If a store celebrates this act, then the next employee who tries to do it and gets permanently maimed can sue the store and say that he thought it was expected of him to do it and part of his job.  He then would get a big pay day.  Store has to do this.  They don't think badly of this guy, blame the lawyers.

Yeah, it's lucky for him that the store didn't decide to just execute him on the spot!

No, the store doesn't "have" to do this.  Insurance will probably require it to have a policy against actively stopping crime.  That policy doesn't have to be backed by immediate firing.

Okay, the store doesn't have to do it but if they don't it will be very expensive for them.  You say they can get insurance, but insurance is going to either not cover the store, or write a policy that would not pay out in this instance.

Do you really think that the store just supports people robbing them and is upset that this guy tried to stop it?


Is the robber actually suing the store, or are you just creating an elaborate but unmoored hypothetical to justify your belief?

Also, the victim of the robbery was not the store itself, but either a customer or passerby.
 
2020-09-19 8:46:48 AM  

SBinRR: The part-tie volunteer firefighter ...

Part-tie?  I think they mean Part-Thai.
Glad I could help.


You gotta flight, for your right, to part-Thai.
 
2020-09-19 8:54:19 AM  

Dork Gently: PaceyWhitter: Dork Gently: PaceyWhitter: Here is the thing.  If a store celebrates this act, then the next employee who tries to do it and gets permanently maimed can sue the store and say that he thought it was expected of him to do it and part of his job.  He then would get a big pay day.  Store has to do this.  They don't think badly of this guy, blame the lawyers.

Yeah, it's lucky for him that the store didn't decide to just execute him on the spot!

No, the store doesn't "have" to do this.  Insurance will probably require it to have a policy against actively stopping crime.  That policy doesn't have to be backed by immediate firing.

Okay, the store doesn't have to do it but if they don't it will be very expensive for them.  You say they can get insurance, but insurance is going to either not cover the store, or write a policy that would not pay out in this instance.

Do you really think that the store just supports people robbing them and is upset that this guy tried to stop it?

Is the robber actually suing the store, or are you just creating an elaborate but unmoored hypothetical to justify your belief?

Also, the victim of the robbery was not the store itself, but either a customer or passerby.


I am telling you why store do this, to prevent lawsuits. They can come from robbers or employees hurt trying to stop robbers.  It doesn't matter if there's a suit in this instance.  If they support this employee intervening, then in the future a litigant can point to this instance to say that the employee was acting on behalf of the store, and thus the store is liable.
 
2020-09-19 8:54:20 AM  
Best thing to do is call the police? Has that guy seen 2020 yet?
 
2020-09-19 9:00:40 AM  
One of my college jobs, way back in the day, was for a (at the time) well-known electronics retailer. The employee training on shoplifting was pretty specific; physically interfering with a shoplifter was a fireable offense. As the District Manager put it, "You are a lot more important than stuff. We can always get more stuff. The warehouse is full of stuff."
 
2020-09-19 9:04:51 AM  

PaceyWhitter: Here is the thing.  If a store celebrates this act, then the next employee who tries to do it and gets permanently maimed can sue the store and say that he thought it was expected of him to do it and part of his job.  He then would get a big pay day.  Store has to do this.  They don't think badly of this guy, blame the lawyers.


Behind every greedy lawyer is a greedy client. I'd say blame the people who see the legal system as a lottery chance.
 
2020-09-19 9:20:35 AM  
So, he violated policy, and was warned.
Then, he did it again, under circumstances that could have cost the company millions.
Then he got fired.
Boo hoo hoo.
Hope his next employer is happy when the shoplifter who ends up quadraplegic in this guys next citizen's arrest sues him for the Sun and the Moon, since he has demonstrably encouraged his behavior.
 
2020-09-19 9:33:57 AM  
All the usual people who defend the commission of crimes are out to insist that our civil justice system should reward criminals.
 
2020-09-19 9:36:44 AM  
I was a grocery cart pusher back in the mid-90s, and we had the same nonintervention policy with shoplifters and purse snatchers. They framed it up as "your personal safety is important," but it was super clear the store didn't want anyone suing them into oblivion.

/Didn't have any purse snatchers when I was there
//Did have an armed robbery, which was exciting
 
2020-09-19 10:08:27 AM  

Golden Brown Delicious: Pretty standard liability policy at any retail store. Not saying I agree with it, but if something had happened the store could have been held liable, or at least mired in expensive legal proceedings. So, to my mind, these policies are essentially a symptom of our farked up system.

I was robbed at gunpoint once. Gave the fellow everything he demanded (no cash, but 30ish digital scales) and he went on his way. The hilarious part was, having been so thoroughly trained and experienced in retail by that point, that when he was walking out the door I said, cheerfully, "Have a nice day!" Still makes me laugh, 15 years later LOL


Courtesy gets to be a habit, and a good one.

Lol, long ago <long story short> I got a bullshiat citation and when the cop handed it to me I said, "Thank you."  We both shared a look and chuckled a little.

/He wasn't the bad guy, his supervisor was.
//The case was dismissed.
 
2020-09-19 10:16:26 AM  

CheatCommando: PaceyWhitter: Here is the thing.  If a store celebrates this act, then the next employee who tries to do it and gets permanently maimed can sue the store and say that he thought it was expected of him to do it and part of his job.  He then would get a big pay day.  Store has to do this.  They don't think badly of this guy, blame the lawyers.

Behind every greedy lawyer is a greedy client. I'd say blame the people who see the legal system as a lottery chance.


One hour of a lawyer's time could easily cover whatever that lady had in her purse, and the number of hours it might take to deal with the fallout of someone being injured is high. That's not greed. It's just common sense. As for a simple hypothetical - what if he got the wrong guy? Say he tackled a guy running his wife's purse out to her. The store would be liable for the guy's injuries, the employee's injuries, any damage to the contents of the purse, and possibly other damages based on the laws of the state. Put very simply: theft of this nature is the job of the police. Call them and give them security video footage and let them handle it.

SBinRR: The part-tie volunteer firefighter ...

Part-tie?  I think they mean Part-Thai.
Glad I could help.


I think they're saying he's related to Tucker Carlson
 
2020-09-19 10:22:20 AM  

Arlinsope: The dude is lucky he didn't get shot.


For the purposes of understanding - but most definitely not defending - brutal store policies like this, that happens to be the core of the point.

You get shot or run over stopping a shoplifter or what have you (or, even worse, the perpetrator does), no one can come after the store for Wrongful Death damages or medical expenses.  To make that stick, they have to sanction you for doing what they don't want you to do.  That is, expose them to liability they think they can avoid.

Funny how so many dumb, evil, and cruel circumstances in our society boil down to "if everyone could earn enough or otherwise receive good health & life insurance, this wouldn't be a problem to begin with..."
 
2020-09-19 10:39:25 AM  
Vigilantism gets people hurt and killed, and is generally unlawful.
People really need to stop romanticizing it.
 
2020-09-19 10:56:39 AM  

PaceyWhitter: Dork Gently: PaceyWhitter: Dork Gently: PaceyWhitter: Here is the thing.  If a store celebrates this act, then the next employee who tries to do it and gets permanently maimed can sue the store and say that he thought it was expected of him to do it and part of his job.  He then would get a big pay day.  Store has to do this.  They don't think badly of this guy, blame the lawyers.

Yeah, it's lucky for him that the store didn't decide to just execute him on the spot!

No, the store doesn't "have" to do this.  Insurance will probably require it to have a policy against actively stopping crime.  That policy doesn't have to be backed by immediate firing.

Okay, the store doesn't have to do it but if they don't it will be very expensive for them.  You say they can get insurance, but insurance is going to either not cover the store, or write a policy that would not pay out in this instance.

Do you really think that the store just supports people robbing them and is upset that this guy tried to stop it?

Is the robber actually suing the store, or are you just creating an elaborate but unmoored hypothetical to justify your belief?

Also, the victim of the robbery was not the store itself, but either a customer or passerby.

I am telling you why store do this, to prevent lawsuits. They can come from robbers or employees hurt trying to stop robbers.  It doesn't matter if there's a suit in this instance.  If they support this employee intervening, then in the future a litigant can point to this instance to say that the employee was acting on behalf of the store, and thus the store is liable.


It seems to me that criminals in the act of a crime should have no civil recourse in the courts.  Breaking into a house and you get hurt or killed?  That's your problem.  I'm not a lawyer, but why do they get to sue anyone boggles my mind.
 
2020-09-19 10:58:15 AM  
ftfa: '20-year-old Essex resident says he worked at the Hannaford there for four years'

He'd been there for 4 years - must've been a corporate decision since the local store obvs liked him.
 
2020-09-19 10:59:56 AM  
The lawyer quoted in the article  is spot on, the store is more worried about liability issues than anything else.  Hence the dropped an employee to make certain nothing he may have done on the job in the future could financially impact them.

Still its a shiatty move to fire the guy so i am glad he found another job so quickly, especially under the present conditions.
 
2020-09-19 11:28:55 AM  

southernmanblog: One of my college jobs, way back in the day, was for a (at the time) well-known electronics retailer. The employee training on shoplifting was pretty specific; physically interfering with a shoplifter was a fireable offense. As the District Manager put it, "You are a lot more important than stuff. We can always get more stuff. The warehouse is full of stuff."


Was the warehouse also full of old ladys purses with their cash, credit cards and I.D.?
 
2020-09-19 11:32:02 AM  
"We do not comment on personnel matters."
AKA "We made a dick move and don't want to talk about it."
 
2020-09-19 11:32:03 AM  

Walosi: I used to work for state workers compensation. The happy stories make the news. I saw plenty of cases where the noble employee ended up permanently maimed trying to stop petty theft.


Yup, my health and welfare is worth more than anything a person could steal from a store.
 
2020-09-19 11:35:28 AM  

fortheloveof: Walosi: I used to work for state workers compensation. The happy stories make the news. I saw plenty of cases where the noble employee ended up permanently maimed trying to stop petty theft.

Yup, my health and welfare is worth more than anything a person could steal from a store.


Old ladies are a store? Hmm.
 
2020-09-19 12:14:28 PM  

Arlinsope: The dude is lucky he didn't get shot.


By the perp, or by the cops?
 
2020-09-19 12:21:45 PM  

WhackingDay: Best thing to do is call the police? Has that guy seen 2020 yet?


With a name like Amir, and being on the wrong side of the chart, the best thing for him would be to NEVER call the police.
i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-19 12:23:22 PM  

robertus: I was a grocery cart pusher back in the mid-90s, and we had the same nonintervention policy with shoplifters and purse snatchers. They framed it up as "your personal safety is important," but it was super clear the store didn't want anyone suing them into oblivion.

/Didn't have any purse snatchers when I was there
//Did have an armed robbery, which was exciting


Counter point, worked for the big K in the 90s as well, their loss control team consisted of retired or off duty cops.  You'd actually get written up if they directed you to stop someone or assist with a takedown & you did nothing.

Had a side entrance by the garden & auto shops so they'd regularly have shoplifters get the boot by mechanics when they tried to run.

Was an idiot college kid & was told to chase a shoplifter, tackled him & then had no idea what to do.  Mechanics came held his arms behind his back & roughed him up on the ground.  All while the off duty cop watched.  District mgr gave me some K bucks which could be used for merchandise as a reward.

Guy was trying to steal a CD.
It was definitely stupid on the stores part but mgmt was obviously never their best asset.
 
2020-09-19 12:59:44 PM  

WTFDYW: fortheloveof: Walosi: I used to work for state workers compensation. The happy stories make the news. I saw plenty of cases where the noble employee ended up permanently maimed trying to stop petty theft.

Yup, my health and welfare is worth more than anything a person could steal from a store.

Old ladies are a store? Hmm.


Reading comprehension, posts in response to other posts adding context, and I hate walruses.
 
2020-09-19 1:17:54 PM  
I am of two minds on the this. On one side vigilantism is nuts, should be illegal and certainly in many cases is illegal. On the other hand if we allow corporations to make  reasonable actions: trying to stop a crime, offering medical assistance in an emergency, etc. a firing offense then we are being dehumanized. The corporation is just a willing and evil participate in the wacky legal framework we have allowed for ourselves. The real problem is our deeply corrupt and almost completely ineffective legal and policing systems.
 
2020-09-19 1:45:48 PM  

darkone: I am of two minds on the this. On one side vigilantism is nuts, should be illegal and certainly in many cases is illegal. On the other hand if we allow corporations to make  reasonable actions: trying to stop a crime, offering medical assistance in an emergency, etc. a firing offense then we are being dehumanized. The corporation is just a willing and evil participate in the wacky legal framework we have allowed for ourselves. The real problem is our deeply corrupt and almost completely ineffective legal and policing systems.


What does vigilantism have to do with this?
It may have not been a great idea, but his actions were not vigilantism.
 
2020-09-19 4:12:33 PM  

mrschwen: darkone: I am of two minds on the this. On one side vigilantism is nuts, should be illegal and certainly in many cases is illegal. On the other hand if we allow corporations to make  reasonable actions: trying to stop a crime, offering medical assistance in an emergency, etc. a firing offense then we are being dehumanized. The corporation is just a willing and evil participate in the wacky legal framework we have allowed for ourselves. The real problem is our deeply corrupt and almost completely ineffective legal and policing systems.

What does vigilantism have to do with this?
It may have not been a great idea, but his actions were not vigilantism.


Agreed, I was merely trying to cover the range. I think his actions were perfectly reasonable and I think the legal system that caused him to be fired and the corporation that fired him are crap. It is hard to write something concise enough to be read while still expressing the precise opinion. Even this is too long for Fark and I will
 
2020-09-19 9:31:19 PM  

fortheloveof: WTFDYW: fortheloveof: Walosi: I used to work for state workers compensation. The happy stories make the news. I saw plenty of cases where the noble employee ended up permanently maimed trying to stop petty theft.

Yup, my health and welfare is worth more than anything a person could steal from a store.

Old ladies are a store? Hmm.

Reading comprehension, posts in response to other posts adding context, and I hate walruses.


My reading comprehension is just fine. Now go mow your mom's grass.
 
2020-09-19 10:27:50 PM  

WTFDYW: fortheloveof: WTFDYW: fortheloveof: Walosi: I used to work for state workers compensation. The happy stories make the news. I saw plenty of cases where the noble employee ended up permanently maimed trying to stop petty theft.

Yup, my health and welfare is worth more than anything a person could steal from a store.

Old ladies are a store? Hmm.

Reading comprehension, posts in response to other posts adding context, and I hate walruses.

My reading comprehension is just fine. Now go mow your mom's grass.


That's what you are going with?

You don't check profiles do you?

A bit of research would do you good, as would knowing what the hell you are talking about.
 
2020-09-20 2:07:58 AM  
How much would someone here like to wager...that the pocketbook thief was a Lib,Dem, BLM person and the hero clerk was a Trump supporter???  I am up for anything under $10k.

Let me know..
 
2020-09-20 7:54:04 AM  

devocr: How much would someone here like to wager...that the pocketbook thief was a Lib,Dem, BLM person and the hero clerk was a Trump supporter???  I am up for anything under $10k.

Let me know..


I'd bet that neither of them are voters. And if you're too much of a pussy to bet less than $10,000 then you're not worth anyone's time.

/I have access to both of their voting records
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.