Horrible employer

It is a company wide policy, can’t go after anyone. He broke the rules by chasing the guy into the parking lot. Idk the exact rule but it’s basically that you can’t go after anyone.

I understand the shoplifting rule; they want their employees to not risk unnecessary harm for stuff that can be easily replaced. However, this case is very different. Who knows what might have happend to the child had the employees not intervened. In addition, they followed police instructions to the letter. Home Depot should strive to define these policies so employees aren't punished for things like this.

I agree completely. Not arguing about it at all, just saying what I know from my family working there.

I’m not trashing on Home Depot, but I’m saying that you don’t get excellent employees there because of the hirining requirements, it’s by luck. They set the bar low, and good staff easily step over, less great ones can still trip right over it. My point is, that in a job where the requirement to be hired is “ legal citizen over 18” you can’t count on every employee having great judgment or not to abuse such things. If they get hurt, or hurt someone, or get in the way and escalate a problem instead of solving it- you don’t want liability. It’s impractical to make sure every Employee is trained in basic stuff by sending them to the first few semesters at the police academy, or such, and theres still judgment as a factor. Now imagine it turned out different and they ha acted differently, or had spooked the guy and he killed the kid. Would they be heroes? It’s illegal to drive 100mph. You can’t get pulled over doing 100 and get off because you didn’t hurt anyone....

.... just because breaking a rule turns out fine, or even better than following it, that doesn’t mean the rules didn’t exist for a reason. That doesn’t mean that anyone who does what you did would have such a happy ending. So how do you make an exception for one person and then expect others to follow the rule? When it happens next time and someone wants to be a hero, thinks they can be a hero, and they end up making things worse, What then? You can’t make a rule: “these rules only apply if something bad happens from breaking it.” Few people ever think they’ll be the one who “fucks it up,” and once you do it’s too late. I suppose the logic is that f one has the skill to be a police officer, and wants to do that sort of thing, then they should go to the acedemy and get trained to do that for a living. I think he did right. I seem to remember him getting his job or some offers after. It’s sucks he was fired and I’m not saying I agree. Just the logic.

For once I disagree with you; It is both morally and socially better to break protocol in case of a kidnapping. What's to say the man kidnapping that child would've been caught by the police had the employee not interfered? What's to say the man wouldn't have killed, molested or hurt the child had they not had their "guardian"? If someone is taken against their will, the best choice is to call the police and keep them updated about the situation, even if that means leaving your spot and trailing them. And yes, if he had done something rash on outright stupid, his actions could have had consequences, but as he was careful about his proceedings and his actions lead the police to the suspect, it should not be punished as it was.
Logic is a very good tool in most cases, but sometimes you have to listen to your moral compass and instincts as well. Do not let an innocent child be left to their own devices with a kidnapper...

So the employee's boss definitely should have taken the situation at hand into proper consideration before taking such a life-changing decision. If he had been a good employee in the past, leaving his post to save a child definitely shouldn't be something to be fired for.

I’m not saying he should have been fired. I’m saying it is simple logic and that is why it is. There is a line, a fuzzy line, but when citizens take it on themselves to participate in enforcing the law, they may be doing right, or do good, but there’s a reason that it isn’t encouraged. In theory at least, police are trained and dedicated to the task. Any random person likely doesn’t have the training, may not have the aptitude, or even the judgment. What happens if it isn’t a kidnapping? What happens if an employee BELIEVES they see a child or adult in danger and takes matters in to their own hands and it is just a misunderstanding? What if someone is hurt? (Removing race issues) When a cop shoots a suspect they have the law and a whole lot of back up on their side that they can stand in court as a credible person and say “I had to.” If you shoot someone on the subway for “being dangerous” you do not have that. You are not an appointed representative of society who has been trusted.

If you think someone is choking and you try and give them the heimlich manuever, and you break their ribs and puncture a lung, or otherwise hurt or kill them- you are legally liable for that in almost every state. If you think a person is having an allergic reaction and you epi-pen them, or any medical treatment to try and save them and fail and or make it worse: you are likely liable. The FIRST question that will likely be asked is: “what training did you have?” “Why did you think that you could do this?” If you’ve never had any training- you’re likely in big trouble. Because some things take skill. It’s the reason doctors and firemen and lawyers and police have training and certification. Because things can go wrong, and good intentions can backfire and cost as many or more lives than they save. Do I think he did right? Yes. I think he did. The fact it turned out well makes that an easy call. But I also understand that the reason such rules exist is for when it DOESN'T go well

If you read the post, you will see that the police encouraged him to follow the kidnapper at a safe distance to ensure that the child was safe. Before acting, the employee did exactly what he should have done; He informed a professional about the situation, and didn't take the law into his own hands. Instead he followed the 911 operator's heed and made sure that the child was alright.
Plus, in a situation where violence occurs, it is severely unlikely that the situation is lawful.
(And what you are talking about is vigilantism, which, while interesting, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The employee /helped/ the police, rather than believing himself to be the justice the situation craved.)

Yes, the rules exist for a reason, but that does not mean that they should be blindly followed in case of an emergency.

As a business Home Depot has everything to lose and nothing to gain from even tacitly encouraging employees to act as amateur police officers. They assume huge liability for anything that happens, and have no reason to believe that the guy who stocks toilet seats is secretly capable of being a special agent. Bank tellers are told to give robbers the money, wether they are armed or not. This is because things escalate. A panicked criminal is more likely to do something dangerous than a calm one. This is why ever most police forces now have heavy restrictions on vehicularly pursuing suspects, and that is for trained cops who passed entrance exams and their other training, not some random guy at home depot. The guy meant well, it turned out well. That’s a good thing. We are only having this conversation because it didn’t go the other way. Because he didn’t get spotted and cause the perp to rabbit and crash fatally, or throw the girl from a moving car, kill her, or anything else.

Yes. If you res don’t my posts you’d see where I say repeated times that I do not agree with their decision, but THIS IS THE LOGIC BY WHICH SUCH POLICIES EXIST. Not that it should have been enforced here. The question precipitating this was about the reasoning which led to the decision. If we move beyond that to justification- the crux becomes wether the police asked him to follow the suspect, or wether he began to follow the suspect and then continued at the request of the police. It is completely unreasonable and illegal to ask an employee to not follow the lawful orders of a police offficer. There is room to argue wether or not a police officer is empowered by the law to compel a private citizen to perform law enforcement duties which carry a theoretical risk to the person performing them- in Oregon my amateur legal research shows that the request to follow would fall under a lawful order for assistance in arrest or prevention of a crime, and as such the employee was legally bound.

But that was not the question. The question was what was THEIR logic, not what is my logic, your logic, what laws did who violate, etc. it was a question of logic. Understanding why someone is wrong is not the same as understanding why a person could think they are right. One allows arm chair quarterbacking after a fact and the other can be applied proactively to avoid future problems. The failure in their logic comes from- as you point out, the fact that the employee was legally compelled to provide assistance. The question in this post however was not “why is their logic wrong” it was “what was their logic” and hence my reply wasn’t ever intended to cover why they are wrong or even how wrong I thought they were (although if you’ll look I did mention. For posterity several times I didn’t agree.) the answer was why they came to that decision.

If you disagree with my explanation, please provide what you believe to be the decision making process they used to arrive at the conclusion of events. Information on why they are wrong is not relevant to what made them choose such a policy or to fire their employee. The fact they rehired him means they obviously admitted wrong on some level, even if it was just being “wrong” on PR- so before they owned to being wrong, what guided their decision? I couldn’t they sat there and said: “the police told him to. We should fire him so that we can be wrong.” They must have had a reason no? That was the question- their reason.

Yes, and their only reasoning was that he hadn't followed the Home Depot policies, which doesn't procure a stable ground for their argument, hence why it was a favorable outcome that they apologized and rehired him. It seems that we agree, though I misread your point in the first place, my apologies.
(Also are you secretly Alexander Hamilton? Because you type FAST! (I love it! :D))

Lol. No worries. I agree it isn’t sound logic, but that was most likely their logic. As for the question... you can’t trust my answer because if I am secretly Alexander Hamilton... I wouldn’t say, so a “no” could automatically mean yes, but if I am Alexander Hamilton, I might say yes to mislead you, since secret Alexander Hamilton would presumably never say yes! But if I wasn’t secretl- what was my point again? Oh yes! Home Depot fell victim to one of the classic blunders! never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line! Aha ha!

No worries, Ham, your secret is safe with me.

INCONCEIVABLE!