Working the door....

[datdamnmachine]

it doesn't have to. The right to self-defense is orthogonal to the legal notion of at-will employment. For good or ill—ill in my mind, like yours—the employer made its policy clear, the employee insisted that he would violate the policy even if it were his fault (or nobody's or everyones') even after the policy was repeated to him. They could have fired him on the spot. Hell, they could still fire him for that reason, or for no reason.

The general exceptions to at-will is a) stuff in a contract, collective bargaining agreement, or policies in an employee handbook, b) personal characteristics (age, race, gender, pregnancy, disability, religion, national origin) or c) specific protected actions such as union organizing, testifying against the employer in a wrongful dismissal suit, etc.

"I will repeat, so we are clear, if ANYONE assaults me, my fault, their fault, nobodies fault, everyones fault, they WILL be slammed to the floor and choked out. If that is a problem, then I suggest you never put me in the position to be assaulted," is not a protected action, even in states with "stand your ground" rules.

After all, Wal-Mart isn't telling him not to defend himself. Its telling him not to come to work anymore.

...but...but..."I am the law"

YouTube- Judge Dredd - I NEVER BROKE THE LAW... I AM THE LAW!

[Gopu]

lol wal-mart

[DAYoung]

it doesn't have to. The right to self-defense is orthogonal to the legal notion of at-will employment. For good or ill—ill in my mind, like yours—the employer made its policy clear, the employee insisted that he would violate the policy even if it were his fault (or nobody's or everyones') even after the policy was repeated to him. They could have fired him on the spot. Hell, they could still fire him for that reason, or for no reason.

The general exceptions to at-will is a) stuff in a contract, collective bargaining agreement, or policies in an employee handbook, b) personal characteristics (age, race, gender, pregnancy, disability, religion, national origin) or c) specific protected actions such as union organizing, testifying against the employer in a wrongful dismissal suit, etc.

"I will repeat, so we are clear, if ANYONE assaults me, my fault, their fault, nobodies fault, everyones fault, they WILL be slammed to the floor and choked out. If that is a problem, then I suggest you never put me in the position to be assaulted," is not a protected action, even in states with "stand your ground" rules.

After all, Wal-Mart isn't telling him not to defend himself. Its telling him not to come to work anymore.

This is the sort of reply I was after.

[Lily]

Wal-mart hired MTripp after he made some very strong assertions.

MTripp - are you worried that people you may have stopes might escalate the level of violence in subsequent shoplift/exit attempts?

Are you part of any union? I know in Australia there is a union for retail workers though I'm not sure if store 'Security' falls under this umbrella. I'd be getting the employees together and executing a peaceful protest to management. You shouldn'tbe made to feel responsible for workers not getting their bonus when your hands are tied by the company's ludicrous policy.

Plus, I have seen the 'People of Walmart' website.

[Mtripp]

Wal-mart, have a union??? What color is the sky on your planet?

Seriously, no. Nor am I worried someone might come back. I wish someone would shoot me; so its a hope not a worry.

I live the people of Wal-mart....

[Emevas]

Mtripp,

Given your name and location is associated with your post, is it safe for you to post the story here and claim that what you stated was an accident was actually intentional?

Don't get me wrong, you're entirely justified, I'm just paranoid about internet detectives.

Good story regardless.

[Plasma]

Mtripp,

Given your name and location is associated with your post, is it safe for you to post the story here and claim that what you stated was an accident was actually intentional?

Don't get me wrong, you're entirely justified, I'm just paranoid about internet detectives.

Good story regardless.

Emevas makes a good point. Say the word Tripp and I'll move it to BBC forum so its not publicly viewable. I rather you not get fired for posting this here.

[1point2]

Stories of physical violence and proof of judo working is awesome and all, and I don't mean to be a Negative Liberal Nancy, but...

...you may or may not be legally allowed to detain people if they refuse to let you see the receipt. Does Wal-Mart's contract stipulate that one must submit to a search? It might.
http://consumerist.com/2006/11/ask-t...y-receipt.html

...and many people consider receipt checking to be a dick thing anyway.
http://consumerist.com/tag/receipt-checking/

[Rivington]

Are you part of any union?

Wal-Mart is notoriously anti-union. Last I checked, the only unionized Wal-Marts were in China, but of course there the unions are yellow dog extensions of the state.

[Kickapoo]

...and many people consider receipt checking to be a dick thing anyway.
http://consumerist.com/tag/receipt-checking/

Just how is receipt checking a dick thing to do? I work retail and I know what its like to be chewed out for stolen items, so I cooperate with people checking receipts as a sort of professional courtesy. The article you linked talked about people who what, didn't feel like fumbling around for their receipt? That's fine, but if it comes between making someone show me their receipt or risk them walking out with three hundred dollars worth of clothes and shoes, you can damn well bet they're showing me a reciept.