Autozone Is Dead To Me Now


Autozone is so committed to their Extremist Liberal ideology that they fired an employee who managed to get out of the building during an armed robbery, retrieve his gun from his vehicle and return to save his manager.

AutoZone Fires Worker Who Stopped Robbery | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Let them go bankrupt trying to sell auto parts to their Liberal brethren who cannot even change their own oil like Bob Costas.


That doesn’t even make sense from a PR perspective. They had to realize this would end up as a thing. It’s not even like he shot someone, and they’re afraid of a lawsuit. Very dumb.


Just, wow.


Yeah, you have be so far out in Liberal land that you cannot even hear common sense in the wind to fire an employee who was willing to reenter a store after getting out during an armed robbery to save his boss.


Maybe someone else will hire him now. I see they have a petition (on facebook, I think) for Autozone to rehire him. They aren’t worthy of him.


Hopefully this young man will find employment somewhere that respects an employee with honor and courage.


[quote=“RET423, post:6, topic:37418”]
Hopefully this young man will find employment somewhere that respects an employee with honor and courage.


ADVANCED AUTO PARTS or O’REILLY AUTO PARTS, I don’ tknow their policy, but I gave up on AUTOZONE a long time ago, because of their lack of courtesy toward costomers.


If I were Mr. McLeon, I’m not sure I’d want my job back.
But like the sheriff said, why doesn’t Auto Zone just paint a target on its back? Duh.
A shame it appears the sheriff’s dept. doesn’t have any openings.


This gives me another reason not to go to Autozone.

While the local Autozone stores here seem to have nice and courteous employees, their overall knowledge and selection of parts seems to be lacking. I have found the best selection and knowledge of parts at the local NAPA store. They even had the DC circuit breakers, that are mainly used in marine and RVs, in stock. All of the other places just give you a dumb look and say that you have to order those off of the internet. I needed them to install an extra deep cycle battery that I use to directly power my mobile ham radio.


This kind of, “Thou shalt placate robbers,” policy pervades larger retail stores. Unless it has been changed in the past 2 years, Walgreen’s employees (like my son, prior to graduation from college) are forbidden to confront or pursue shoplifters. And the policies are not “liberal” so much as rational responses to threats of irrational lawsuits - from bystander customers or employees who might get hurt and even the thugs and families of thugs who get hurt or killed.

How many employees who placated the thugs - who gave the thugs everything they asked for as such policies dictate - and were killed as a consequence is something we aren’t likely to learn.


Okay, so some stores have 'robbery policies.'
But how many prospective employees think to ask in the interview, “What’s your robbery policy?” And how many prospective employers go over that upon hiring?

I’ve worked for finanace companies, and I’ve worked for pharmacies. They DO show you where the silent alarm button is in the event of a robbery. The only time I was told, specifically, “Do NOT confront a robber,” is at the finance company. The others just assumed I wouldn’t, I suppose?

IOW, if a business doesn’t tell you it’s policy, how is the empolyee to know the policy?
Perhaps Mr. McLeon, the fired employee, has an actionable case for ‘unjustable firing’? (or whatever you call it)


I believe such policies are recent outgrowths of the war of plunder some in the legal profession have been waging against businesses for several decades. But, yes, employees should be notified of such policies if they may be fired in enforcing the policies. I’m not justifying the policies - I think their wisdom wisdom is dubious or worse - just pointing out that they are common and not politically motivated.

Reforming our legal system to preclude criminals suing over the consequences of their crimes would be helpful, but the majority of politicians are lawyers and enough are sufficiently uninterested in reforms that might hurt fellow lawyers that reform doesn’t happen. Reforming our legal system to elevate the foreseeability burden of proof for bystander injury cases and make such cases “strict liability” (no easily inflatable pain and suffering or punitive damages in any recovery - cut off the mother’s milk of contingency lawsuits) would be helpful, but the majority of politicians are lawyers and enough are sufficiently uninterested in reforms that might hurt fellow lawyers that reform doesn’t happen. Reforming our legal system to loser paying the winner’s legal bill would be helpful … (do I need to copy and paste the all too obvious rest of the sentence?).


Maybe attorney’s have forced these policy’s into existence but it was Autozone who chose to fire an employee who obeyed the policy right up until his manager was being held at gunpoint, then he left to get his gun and return.

That was ALL Autozone, there was no threat of litigation since they learned of his heroism after the fact so this was 100 percent Anti Gun/2nd Amendment politics.


A company policy about not bringing guns to work isn’t really “anti-gun” or “anti-second-amendment”. Autozone should be ashamed for their iron-clad enforcement of their policy despite this man’s heroism, but their policy is in no way an infringement of the second amendment. If they don’t want employees bringing guns to work, that is also their right.


This seems appropriate.


Read through all of your posts wish to give my two cents. For one, it is an outrage this man is being penalized on the grounds of a corporate policy banning defensive action. To begin, those policies are C.M.A. policies in case something goes wrong. For example, guy is trying to rob the store, you, the employee pull ur gun, firing takes place a bystander gets hit. That bystander or bystander’s family will most likely pursue damages and will go after the company (because that’s where the money is, obviously). If this policy exists, they can point at it and say “sorry we told him not to do that, he’s fired. Bad form. Blah blah blah” and then the family goes after you instead.

Now, if there are no risks of lawsuit, as in no one was hurt and no damages can be sought, they have no need to throw this policy out. Hell, this was a publicist’s wet dream. An Autozone worker, the cowboy, the bad-a^^, the take no prisoners type of guy would make for a great market gimmic. And someone pointed out that someone in their marketing team must of said that if they fire this guy, it might hurt the bottom line. Dumb move on that part.

So, in conclusion, the policy is fine, having it is fine (private enterprise should be allowed to conduct business as the see fit) but enforcing it in this moment was foolish. Even if they had to answer the “well you have a policy” they could pull the benevolent boss type “well the boy will be taught that in the future, we’d prefer he didn’t do that. But in the spirit of his heroism we see no reason to let him go. Perhaps a training is required”. But instead, we got gun-toting Americans (such as yourselves) in a huff, the people of that town pissed off, and the second another autozone is hit for anything, this will be brought up.


'Zactly, FLCon.

Btw, I wasn’t suggesting that guy should sue. Threatening to, would be fun, though.
Just seeing the look on their faces at the prospects of getting the exact opposite publicity you mentioned, FC, would make the hassle worth it.