Florida Wal-Mart Fires Security Guard for Chasing Shoplifter

By Opposing Views Editorial Staff , To Protect and Serve Opposing Views - October 22, 2009

Icoemail3
Comments(8) | (0)
A Wal-Mart security guard who chased down a knife-wielding shoplifter now finds himself on the unemployment line, fired for his heroic actions. Josh Rutner says "I couldn't let him get away." But Wal-Mart says he should have.

According to Rutner's account and the police report, Rutner was patroling the store in Ocala Florida earlier this month, when he saw a man put a box of golf balls down his pants. Rutner says he watched as the man walked around some more, take the package out and put it on a random shelf, then go to the food department and eat a sandwich without paying. Then he went back to the golf balls, put them in his pants again, and took off.

Rutner radioed for assistance, and he and two other employees tackled the man. But then the man surprised them all by pulling a knife, and slashing at Rutner's face. Thankfully, he missed. But the man ran out of the store.

"I felt now that he was a danger to the public and the city," he said. "If he'd pull a knife on two security guards, he'd pull a knife on anyone."

Rutner followed him into the parking lot, and tried to hit him with a shopping cart. The drama finaly came to an end when a customer who was following all of this from her car told the man to drop the knife, which he did.

But the story doesn't end here. The next day, Rutner was fired for violating the store's no-chase policy. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Michelle Bradford said, "We take the safety and security of our customers and associates very seriously. There are specific instructions as to what an associate can and can't do during a shoplifting episode."

Rutner says he knew the policy when he gave chase. But he says it just wasn't right to let the man get away. "I didn't get hurt. They got their merchandise," he said. "And yet I got fired."

The suspect, Marc Ash, is charged with robbery with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault.
This content is inappropriate
Loading

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:


Regarding Article
NEWS:Florida Wal-Mart Fires Security Guard for Chasing Shoplifter

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Rice klowN
    Bye Bye Rutber!

    No-chase rules were created by people smarter than Mr. Rutner and he should have considered that.

    No-chase policies are designed by people that understand that a human life is far more valuable (or costly in case of a wrongful death lawsuit ) than anything a thief could possibly carry out of the store.

    it's not about right and wrong, it's about priorities. Golf Balls or dead human... You decide.

    This is self righteous thought on his part, he thought his personal sense of what should or shouldn't be trumped any rules he is to follow. Plus he acted on heat of the moment reasoning and ignored patiently considered operational policy on shoplifters over the products that the company, not him, owns. The company had already decided that it didn't want anyone running to reclaim IT'S property and he decided he knew better.

    Furthermore, several incidents have already happened were Walmart Earps have given chase and in their ignorance killed shoplifters.

    We've talked about this before on OP and I'll say it again: he got fired , exactly as he should have.

    - Rice klowNUS October 22, 2009 1:39PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • ToddG
      Better know when it's worth it

      I completely agree that Rutber made an ill-considered decision. Just because things worked out, doesn't mean there weren't considerable risks to doing what he did. I don't think that means people should never bend or even break the rules, but you'd better be sure it's for the best. That means fully evaluating the situation, which requires having the knowledge and experience to both see the potential outcomes and then weigh the risks and potential benefits . This situation doesn't even come close to that standard. The benefits were minuscule while the risks were more sufficiently more considerable.

      - ToddGUS October 22, 2009 2:20PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Rice klowN
        His name is Rutner,

        I just screwed up on that title. Sorry

        I've been thinking. Maybe the problem here is a lack of the right meme. This kind of issue has happened several times this year and I wonder: Is the problem really that the company just makes the rule but fails to explain to it's non-intellectual employees that the rules are pre-decided for them so that they won't make a "heat of the moment" error in judgement?

        Part of me understands the reasoning of the employee. Would an employee not follow if there were no rules like this? I think the employee would give chase a majority of the time for the same reasoning: don't let criminals get away.

        But my logic side knows exactly why this rule exists.

        So, in my opinion, the employee made the choice he would have naturally made and that simple instruction on the rules shouldn't be just to tell them the rules but to offer a full explaination as to why the rule is in place.

        Not saying all rules need a full explaination, but rules that go against nature must be.

        - Rice klowNUS October 22, 2009 3:44PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • ToddG
          Oops

          And I just copied the name as you wrote it.

          I agree with the point you raise, and at this point the details of the case go well beyond what we know. A good employer should explain any rules that don't have a clear and immediate explanation. While this rule isn't exactly hard to understand, it is one that should be vital to reinforce as it is one that is more likely to be dismissed or just forgotten. It might be that the manager at the Wallmart had explained the rule and reinforced it, in which case Rutner rightfully was fired . It might also be that they didn't, but the manager figured it was just simpler and safer to fire the guy who has already shown a tendency to chase down a shoplifter. If that's the case I think Rutner got screwed a little, but he still broke the rule.

          - ToddGUS October 22, 2009 4:06PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Don Earl
    Sad

    Years ago I worked at a mall. One day a Sears security guy chased a shoplifter out of the store. A scuffle ensued and the security guy threw his radio at the perp. Unfortunately, he missed and hit a little girl in the face with it. I never heard what came of it, but I suspect Sear's attorneys were tripping over themselves to settle without going to court.

    Rutner did the wrong thing for the right reason, but that doesn't make what he did right. He got lucky under circumstances where it could easily have gone the other way. What if instead of running, the crook had grabbed a hostage instead?

    With that said, however, Walmart is famous for its lack of employee training. Rutner's actions demonstrate how poor that training really is. He obviously was aware of the rule. Equally obvious, he had no clue what the rule was intended to prevent. So, he gets to be Walmart's scapegoat for Walmart's own incompetence. IMO, that's sad.

    - Don EarlUS October 22, 2009 6:34PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Tiger155
    Know the Background

    Greetings:

    1). Before we make judgement against Walmart training - we should know that they did inform the security about their policy from the officers's own admission.
    2). To state that his employer did not explain why this policy was in place is highly unlikely. Just from experience,if you were in a class and employed as a security and you were told not to chase after a shoplifter you were being employed to prevent from operting in your store, would you not ask? Of course you would.
    3). Further if taht state has a state requirement for secureity guards, their training would without doubt have a section in there regarding arresting anyone by a private security officer/guard.
    4). The security officer indicated taht he saw the person remove the item and placed it down on a counter in another location, then went to another location of the store, before returning to the item the second time.
    5). The officer should have removed the item where it had been placed by the suspect. Then the presence of security and sales associates should have been positioned along the route back to where he had placed ther item.

    I shall leav off from here at thsi time.

    - Tiger155US October 23, 2009 5:47AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • rayven
    No-chase rules

    are there for a reason.

    That reason is to protect actual people from being hurt or killed. Nobody knows what a shoplifter will do, as in this case. Some criminals will do anything so they don't get caught, and pulling a knife is just one example.

    This guy violated the rules of his employer, and even though he managed to catch the criminal, Wal-Mart did exactly what it should have done.

    - rayvenUS November 4, 2009 1:21PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • harleyjames
    Negligence

    Although security guards in Florida are trained 60 hours minimum by state licensed instructors to protect life and property, it is the employer that sets the standards for emplyment by establishing policy.

    A Security Guard is required by state law to know those standards and follow them explicitly when employed.

    No excuse for his actions if no-chase is the Wal-Mart policy as he needlessly endangered others and himself by violating it. In court it's called Negligence and Failure to Maintain A Reasonable Standard of Care.

    - harleyjamesUS November 4, 2009 2:02PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...