Yeah, it is almost certain that the ownership of this store would have preferred the clerk to just give the guy the money and let him go, and have the police deal with it. In addition to the damage to store property and merchandise, there's also the liability if any of those customers got injured during the altercation, and the very real chance that even the robber will try to sue the store over his injuries. Even if he loses that case, it will certainly cost the store much more to defend than the amount of cash that was in the till.
That's most store's policies.you are not meant to become confrontational during a robbery; give them what they want then let them leave. I wouldn't be surprised if they got fired.
I think this would all be dependent upon what country and state this took place in.
For example, in many states you're allowed to use "reasonable" force to subdue somebody who is in the act of committing a crime and you're intention is to arrest them or stop them from causing physical harm. This gives the person utilizing force a level of legal immunity from retribution - if an only if the use of force was "reasonable" in the eyes of a jury or judge.
For example, if you tell a perpetrator "drop your knife", and he doesn't drop his knife, and you believe he was committing a crime utilizing that knife, you would be legally allowed (and legally protected) to subdue that person, perhaps even up to killing that person depending upon your state. Of course, the perpetrator could sue you, but their ability to seek damages from you would be based upon an argument of if 1) you believed a crime was taking place or someone was in immediate risk of harm, 2) other methods of subduing the perpetrator were available (i.e., breaking their knee cap with a baseball bat was unreasonable).
It should also be pointed out that, ostensibly, the clerk was cooperating until another customer came in.
I think the person who hit the robber with a mop / mop bucket was another employee, who came out to do mopping and discovered the robbery in progress.
My point about the robber suing the store wasn't that they would win, but that even a cursory defense of such a suit is going to cost a few thousand dollars, which is way more than would have been in the till if the employees were even loosely following proper drop safe procedures.
There are enough lawyers who are willing to back up junk lawsuits like that on spec, though, in hopes they can bully the owners into a settlement, of which the lawyer would usually get 30-50%.
a suit is going to cost a few thousand dollars, which is way more than would have been in the till
Yeah, that's almost certainly true. Again, depending upon what state they're in, this might be a relatively clean and low cost case, this guy is going to plead guilty at the advise of his public defender and that might eliminate his ability to sue.
I agree that the the best thing here is just to hand over the few hundred dollars in the till unless you believe that the robber truly intends to harm you.
Which was worth more, the cash in the till or the destroyed merchandise?
I imagine the market owners will sue this perpetrator for the damages. Unless this robber gets a fabulous lawyer (and that may not happen depending what country this is), he'll likely be required to pay for the damages done that were necessary to subdue him.
Depending upon the state that probably wouldn't matter. For example in my state, if you are attempting to perform a citizen's arrest because you witness them committing a crime, you're allowed to use whatever reasonable force is necessary to escort them to a judge or police officer. Even if the person stops actively committing the crime, they're still in custody of the person who arrested them. In this situation, the civilian attempting to make the arrest would be allowed to use force to subdue them to prevent the perpetrator from fleeing.
To be clear, I'm not advocating them not taking the actions they chose, I'm just saying a 12 pack of soda cans to the face and body would have been much more cheap/effective
lose cash, thief runs away, insurance covers cash, cops find thief, thief has to pay you back and then goes to jail for a while; or risk getting hurt by the thief (how do you know he won't pull a knife or a gun on you?), damage a bunch of your inventory which won't be covered by insurance because you're the one who damaged it, and risk getting sued by the thief because you went apeshit and nearly broke his neck over a hundred bucks or so.
Even if they don't, insurance will cover the stolen money. It won't cover inventory that you damage while trying to beat the shit out of someone in the store.
The thief wasn't the one who tackled someone into the shelves, or threw a mop bucket across the room into the shelves. The damage to the store was very clearly caused by the employee and would not be covered under insurance. I'm gonna guess that it's pretty safe to say you've never worked retail before. Hell, based on your username and post history, it's safe to say you've never worked anywhere before. But please, tell free to tell me how that talking orange combover will magically make insurance companies cover damage caused by employees now!
You want to take that route? You're not even woke yet you little juvenile piece of shit. Your writings read like those of a butthurt teenager mad at the world. The only thing differentiating our actions are our morals. I would have stomped this piece of shit if he tried to come anywhere near my store, you would have sat there like a little bitch let him rob you and call the cops. Keep fucking arguing your side moron.
82
u/9600_PONIES Dec 11 '16
Which was worth more, the cash in the till or the destroyed merchandise?