Recently, Devin McLean, an Autozone retail store employee, exited his Autozone store, went out to his vehicle to retrieve a handgun, and re-entered the building after he noticed the locally infamous "fake beard bandit" enter the store and pull a gun on a coworker.
Autozone fired McLean, citing a "zero tolerance" corporate weapons policy.
Is Autozone safer as a result of this policy? We don't think so. Future robbers will know that employees have to put their paychecks on the line to stop a robbery. Why bother pulling your own gun as an employee when it's most likely your employer's money the robbers want anyway?
Is the business better off? Boycotts of the retailer are already mounting up. Though there may only be a slight dip in the company's revenue, some money was still lost. The question most likely on Autozone's upper management is a cost/benefit analysis of the lost boycott revenue vs. lawsuit liability in future cases that are not so cut and dry as McLean's. In other words, their current decision suggests their paranoid corporate lawyers have more influence than any calls to black/white morality in the moment.
Did they make the correct choice? You decide. Sound off in comments below.