I got the story from Consumerist:

http://consumerist.com/2011/02/walmart- ... obber.html

Here's the article which Consumerist based its story on:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14319284

Sounds F'ed up.

If a weapon comes out, however, associates must "disengage" and "withdraw," the policy states.

The workers say they don't know where they would have withdrawn to, with the door behind them closed in a small room and the man charging at them. They contend they had no other real option.

So walmart basically told them in order to keep their job they had to submit, and put their lives in danger, possibly because walmart the most powerful corporation on the planet, doesn't want the robber to sue them. (unfortunately this has happend many times before... and I've seen the criminals win). Not only is it a violation of civil rights to tell people they can't defend themselves in a situation like that.


It's also "stupid" on wal marts part because of the damages and cout settlement for any of the victims families.... but wait, walmart takes out insurance policies on their employees so that if they die protecting walmarts profits, wal mart doesn't suffer.

Oh, another thing which got lost in the shuffle:

Longton pleaded guilty Monday to two charges: robbery, a second-degree felony; and the purchase, transfer, possession or use of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person, a class A misdemeanor. In exchange for his plea, three other charges were dismissed, including threatening or using a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel.

Those damn judges are screwing us again. Here in MD, we've just had some hearings on proposed new gun laws aiming at improving gun-control. Quite a few of those who came in favor of the bills came armed with examples of people who illegally possessed guns but were allowed to go on their way after their guns were confiscated but without being charged for illegal gun possession!!! (In some cases not charged at all, because the illegal gun possession was the only illegality.) So people in favor of gun control seize on these cases, then they go to their representatives crying that the law is broken, then the representatives decide to bring in new bills to strengthen the law. In fact the law was already strong enough but just not applied.

Yeah, I realize in this case he was charged with the possession of the gun but they did drop another gun charge.

Not to mention the fact that the control law was ineffective to begin with since he as a criminal got hold of the gun in the first place.

lemur wrote:Those damn judges are screwing us again.

Most likely, those charges were dismissed at the request of prosecution. In major cases it's standard procedure to load up the indictment with multiple charges, fully intending to drop some for a plea.

Prosecutors have finite time and resources, and a jury trial is big sink on both (not to mention that tax dollars are probably paying for the defense as well). Juries are unpredicable, witnesses disappear or muddle their stories, and the defendant is usually out on bail for a year or so before trial. Pragmatically speaking, a felony plea is probably a win for the people in this case.

MtnMan wrote: Most likely, those charges were dismissed at the request of prosecution. In major cases it's standard procedure to load up the indictment with multiple charges, fully intending to drop some for a plea.

Prosecutors have finite time and resources, and a jury trial is big sink on both (not to mention that tax dollars are probably paying for the defense as well). Juries are unpredicable, witnesses disappear or muddle their stories, and the defendant is usually out on bail for a year or so before trial. Pragmatically speaking, a felony plea is probably a win for the people in this case.

You are right. It was probably the prosecution who dropped the charges. I understand the reasons for it (saving resources) but the general interpretation which results from this is "gun laws are ineffective" when in fact the penalties which should apply are not applied because the charges are dropped at the discretion of the prosecution.

I also think the aim of saving resources is not one which prosecutors apply in a logical, consistent manner, for the benefit of the population. They apply it in a way which serves their own personal interests or the interests of their profession.

lemur wrote:I also think the aim of saving resources is not one which prosecutors apply in a logical, consistent manner, for the benefit of the population. They apply it in a way which serves their own personal interests or the interests of their profession.

True that.

Fuck Walmart!

Sonofagun wrote:Fuck Walmart!

Seconded!

AmirMortal wrote:

Sonofagun wrote:Fuck Walmart!

Seconded!

Thirded

For me, buying ammo is either at WM or Cabela's. They're the same company more or less. They're both pieces shit. One's runny and one's a turd with a piece of corn, but they're both still shit.
Six of one, half dozen of the other.