Amazon.com Widgets

Officer sues Wal-Mart for firing him for carrying gun while working as police officer. Should he have been fired?

  • He should have known the rules.

    Yes, this officer should have been fired, because he should have known that Wal-Mart uses unarmed police officers. This is no different than an employee violating any other kind of office policy. Employers need to know that their employees will follow the rules. This keeps the public safe at the end of the day.

  • No, the police officer should not have been fired.

    I do not believe that the officer should have been fired. His primary job was as a police officer and if he is on duty he is required to carry his firearm. It is ridiculous that the store expects that he should not carry his firearm while he is on duty. An exception should have been made in that case.

  • They shouldn't have fired him.

    Why did they hire a police officer to work for them in the first place? Did they not know that he would have a gun on him? Did they tell him not to carry his gun? How can he do his job as a police officer if he can't carry his gun? This entire situation seems very fishy to me.

  • Officer sues Wal-Mart for firing him for carrying gun while working as police officer. He should not have been fired

    Officer sues Wal-Mart for firing him for carrying gun while working as police officer. He should not have been fired. This phobia over guns is getting completely out of control. Wal-Mart is among the worst offenders. And to lash out like this at a police officer - one you expect to carry a gun - borders on the absurd.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.