Listen to the article
0:00
0:00
Watch full video on YouTube
Armed 7-Eleven Clerk Shoots Attacker & Gets Fired
Watch full video on YouTube
22 Comments
This case is a classic example of how companies prioritize their own interests over the well-being of their employees, even when they’re victims of violence.
The clerk’s firing is a clear example of how companies often prioritize their public image over doing what’s right, even if it means sacrificing an employee who was just trying to protect himself.
I’ve worked in retail before, and it’s not uncommon for employees to feel vulnerable to attacks, so it’s disappointing to see the company handle the situation this way.
The fact that the clerk was armed and able to defend himself may have prevented more serious harm, but it also raises questions about the accessibility of firearms in the workplace.
The incident raises important questions about workplace safety and the responsibilities of companies to protect their employees from violence.
I’m not sure what’s more disturbing, the fact that the clerk was fired or the fact that the company seems to be downplaying the severity of the attack.
It’s essential to consider the psychological impact of this incident on the clerk and other employees who may feel vulnerable to similar attacks in the future.
The fact that the 7-Eleven clerk was fired after defending himself against an attacker is concerning, as it raises questions about the company’s policies on self-defense.
It seems like the company is more concerned with avoiding lawsuits than protecting their employees.
It’s unclear what kind of support the clerk received after the incident, and whether the company provided any resources for him to deal with the trauma.
This incident highlights the need for clearer policies on self-defense in the workplace and better support for employees who are victims of violence.
The company’s policies on self-defense and employee safety need to be re-examined in light of this incident, to ensure that employees are protected and supported.
I’m not convinced that the company’s decision to fire the clerk was fair, given the circumstances of the attack and the fact that he was acting in self-defense.
I’m curious to know what the attacker’s motivations were and whether this incident is part of a larger pattern of violence in the area.
It would be interesting to know more about the company’s history with employee safety and whether there have been any similar incidents in the past.
I’d like to know more about the legal implications of this incident and whether the clerk has any grounds for a lawsuit against the company.
The YouTube video of the incident is graphic, but it’s essential to watch to understand the context of the situation and the clerk’s actions.
Firing the clerk sends a disturbing message that employees who defend themselves may face consequences, which could lead to more violent incidents in the future.
It’s surprising that the company didn’t consider the clerk’s actions as a form of self-defense, especially given the circumstances of the attack.
The video on YouTube shows the clerk’s quick thinking in responding to the attack, but it’s unclear whether he received any training on how to handle such situations.
This incident is a reminder that workplace violence is a real concern, and companies need to take concrete steps to prevent it and support employees who are affected by it.
It’s disappointing to see the company handling the situation in a way that seems to blame the victim, rather than supporting him and taking steps to prevent similar incidents in the future.