Popeyes manager fired for refusing to pay back $400 taken in armed robbery

[BlackSand]

And how does he know how much is in the drawer? He has X-ray vision?

Pop, you just broke a major clue in the investigation --- Superman did it!

Are you really THAT ignorant?

Never mind, the answer is obvious.

That's all you got?
Can you walk into a Popeye's right now and tell me how much is in their drawer? From the outside?

He can now tell you how much they are supposed to have in the drawer (or at least close) ... Unless the manager on duty is slacking on their responsibilities.

.

 

[Yurt]

you left out this part:

However, a spokesman in the company's human resources department said Holcomb was fired because she didn't follow company policy, leaving too much money in the cash register. And this wasn't her first offense.

LOL! What did you think they would say "Nice job you got there, be a shame if you lost it? Lets talk about that $400 smackeroos"

the truth? do you proof what they said is not true?

Do you have proof it is? Quite the conundrum

so you have no proof that she was fired for not giving back $400....quite the conundrum

We both dont have proof, but we both believe what we want. Weird huh>?

it is more logical that she was fired to repeatedly breaking the rules than being fired for not giving the $400 back.

 

[Gracie]

But now they are offering her 2k and giving her the job back? Why give her 2k????
She broke policy and was fired. They pussed out and should have stayed firm.

 

[EverCurious]

Lotta verbage here, I'm gonna cut to the chase of "two things".

Thing One: it minimizes how much a robber can take. We already agree. I say that's the ONLY thing it does.

Thing Two: it makes robbery "less probable" --- well, no. It can't. (a) Said robber has no idea how much is in there, (b) said robber MAY know that's probably the policy, but then the drawer is hardly his only resource once he's in the act. The first thing he went for was not the drawer but the safe. He could have also robbed people individually. It ain't like the contents of a cash drawer are all there is, and even if there's only 20 bucks in there -- if he gets it, that's 20 bucks he didn't have when he walked in and pulled a gun. It's not like armed robbery is an exact science with pie-chart thresholds defining how much money is worth pulling a job.

Most studies on the matter the world over disagree with you on point two:

"This paper describes a research project conducted in five states to provide more detailed information on convenience store robberies and to identify ways in which these robberies might be reduced.

[...]

One of the earliest studies that set the foundation for subsequent studies of convenience stores was conducted by Crow and Bull (1975) in conjunction with the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ) and the Southland Corporation, then the largest owner of western 7-11 convenience stores. Crow and Bull surveyed 349 convicted armed robbers and asked them to identify store characteristics that could influence their decision to rob a store. The robbers' responses were then used to develop a ranking of stores according to their attractiveness to robbery. Based on this scale, Crow and Bull developed several robbery prevention measures. The prevention measures consisted of: strategic placing of signs announcing a low amount of cash on hand in the store: moving cash drop boxes to make them more conspicuous: improving lighting in the parking lot: keeping the store clean: enhancing employee alertness: and greeting each person who came in.

[...]

"Swanson (1986) conducted a three-part analysis of the convenience store robbery problem. Swanson first interviewed 65 convenience store robbers incarcerated
in Florida and asked them to rank in order the most desirable characteristics in choosing a store to rob. The five most desirable characteristics the robbers ranked were: (1)
remote area (45%); (3) no customers (32%): (3) one clerk on duty (32%); (4) easy access/get away (25%); (5) lots of cash (25%). As suggested by Bentham's (1979)
utility theory, Swanson's research suggests that convenience store robbers weigh the costs and benefits before committing a robbery." ~ http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/173772.pdf



"Decision making practice on who to rob (choice of targets/victims)

According to Conklin (1972), Thio (1998:326), once the decision to rob has been made, the next step for the robbers is to select a certain target. Choice of would-be-victim or target is therefore a top priority in robbery escapades. Choices are neither ordinarily, nor haphazardly made. They are often based on certain criteria, and evaluated on cost-benefit analysis based on certain factors such as lucrative establishments and lower risk of arrest (see also Conklin, 1972; Thio, 1998:326).

The findings in this study confirm the importance of decision making practice on the choice of who to rob. We found a total of 70.6% of our 68 sample who responded to the variable accepted making such decision.

[...]

These findings revealed that decisions on the choice of targets are not made on a vacuum and they find support with previous studies on targets or victims’ selection (see Conklin, 1972; Thio, 1998) According to these authors, three factors are crucial to the gang of armed robbers or the lone-armed robber while making decision bothering on the selection of the targets. These are lucrative, establishment, and risk assessment." ~ Society for Research and Academic Excellence


"Conducted as a follow-up to a 1985 survey, the Athena Research Corporation (Athena) study concluded that robbers target stores with easy access to cash and easy escape routes without regard to alarms or surveillance technology. According to the survey, the number one concern for culprits in planning a robbery is how to escape. Their second priority is the amount of money they will get.

[...]

MOTIVATIONS. Fifty-five percent of those surveyed in 1995 said they would need to pocket at least $200 to be motivated enough to steal. Forty-five percent of respondents said that they would be willing to rob a convenience store because they expect to get at least $200 from these establishments.

[...]

Effective. To determine what would make a robber more reluctant to rob a store, respondents were asked what was most important in deciding which convenience store to rob. In 1985, the most important factor from among eleven was money, and a good escape route was second. In 1995, an escape route was first and money second, due at least in part to stores reducing the amount of money kept on hand. One robber summed up the major findings of the survey when asked what had ever kept him from robbing. He said, "A bad escape route, and the cashier drops the cash too often." ~ Crimes of convenience a study of what motivates robbers finds that conventional wisdom may be wrong. - Free Online Library

 

[Pogo]

Lotta verbage here, I'm gonna cut to the chase of "two things".

Thing One: it minimizes how much a robber can take. We already agree. I say that's the ONLY thing it does.

Thing Two: it makes robbery "less probable" --- well, no. It can't. (a) Said robber has no idea how much is in there, (b) said robber MAY know that's probably the policy, but then the drawer is hardly his only resource once he's in the act. The first thing he went for was not the drawer but the safe. He could have also robbed people individually. It ain't like the contents of a cash drawer are all there is, and even if there's only 20 bucks in there -- if he gets it, that's 20 bucks he didn't have when he walked in and pulled a gun. It's not like armed robbery is an exact science with pie-chart thresholds defining how much money is worth pulling a job.

Most studies on the matter the world over disagree with you on point two:

"This paper describes a research project conducted in five states to provide more detailed information on convenience store robberies and to identify ways in which these robberies might be reduced.

[...]

One of the earliest studies that set the foundation for subsequent studies of convenience stores was conducted by Crow and Bull (1975) in conjunction with the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ) and the Southland Corporation, then the largest owner of western 7-11 convenience stores. Crow and Bull surveyed 349 convicted armed robbers and asked them to identify store characteristics that could influence their decision to rob a store. The robbers' responses were then used to develop a ranking of stores according to their attractiveness to robbery. Based on this scale, Crow and Bull developed several robbery prevention measures. The prevention measures consisted of: strategic placing of signs announcing a low amount of cash on hand in the store: moving cash drop boxes to make them more conspicuous: improving lighting in the parking lot: keeping the store clean: enhancing employee alertness: and greeting each person who came in.

[...]

"Swanson (1986) conducted a three-part analysis of the convenience store robbery problem. Swanson first interviewed 65 convenience store robbers incarcerated
in Florida and asked them to rank in order the most desirable characteristics in choosing a store to rob. The five most desirable characteristics the robbers ranked were: (1)
remote area (45%); (3) no customers (32%): (3) one clerk on duty (32%); (4) easy access/get away (25%); (5) lots of cash (25%). As suggested by Bentham's (1979)
utility theory, Swanson's research suggests that convenience store robbers weigh the costs and benefits before committing a robbery." ~ http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/173772.pdf



"Decision making practice on who to rob (choice of targets/victims)

According to Conklin (1972), Thio (1998:326), once the decision to rob has been made, the next step for the robbers is to select a certain target. Choice of would-be-victim or target is therefore a top priority in robbery escapades. Choices are neither ordinarily, nor haphazardly made. They are often based on certain criteria, and evaluated on cost-benefit analysis based on certain factors such as lucrative establishments and lower risk of arrest (see also Conklin, 1972; Thio, 1998:326).

The findings in this study confirm the importance of decision making practice on the choice of who to rob. We found a total of 70.6% of our 68 sample who responded to the variable accepted making such decision.

[...]

These findings revealed that decisions on the choice of targets are not made on a vacuum and they find support with previous studies on targets or victims’ selection (see Conklin, 1972; Thio, 1998) According to these authors, three factors are crucial to the gang of armed robbers or the lone-armed robber while making decision bothering on the selection of the targets. These are lucrative, establishment, and risk assessment." ~ Society for Research and Academic Excellence


"Conducted as a follow-up to a 1985 survey, the Athena Research Corporation (Athena) study concluded that robbers target stores with easy access to cash and easy escape routes without regard to alarms or surveillance technology. According to the survey, the number one concern for culprits in planning a robbery is how to escape. Their second priority is the amount of money they will get.

[...]

MOTIVATIONS. Fifty-five percent of those surveyed in 1995 said they would need to pocket at least $200 to be motivated enough to steal. Forty-five percent of respondents said that they would be willing to rob a convenience store because they expect to get at least $200 from these establishments.

[...]

Effective. To determine what would make a robber more reluctant to rob a store, respondents were asked what was most important in deciding which convenience store to rob. In 1985, the most important factor from among eleven was money, and a good escape route was second. In 1995, an escape route was first and money second, due at least in part to stores reducing the amount of money kept on hand. One robber summed up the major findings of the survey when asked what had ever kept him from robbing. He said, "A bad escape route, and the cashier drops the cash too often." ~ Crimes of convenience a study of what motivates robbers finds that conventional wisdom may be wrong. - Free Online Library

I'm sorry you're getting lost in all that work, and no I'm not about to navigate all that.

Bottom line, I don't think a common thug hitting a Popeye's is crafting his profession on "studies". I think it's an impulsive thing. "Me have gun, need money, umgawa", that's it.

 

[Pogo]

But now they are offering her 2k and giving her the job back? Why give her 2k????
She broke policy and was fired. They pussed out and should have stayed firm.

Have you ever slipped on somebody's sidewalk, broke your coccyx, gone to the chiropractor and had the owner's insurance company cheerfully offer to reimburse whatever you paid on the health care --- as long as you agree not to sue them (or in my case, to pursue a claim)?

That's why, I strongly suspect. It's cheaper.

 

[EverCurious]

I'm sorry you're getting lost in all that work, and no I'm not about to navigate all that.

Bottom line, I don't think a common thug hitting a Popeye's is crafting his profession on "studies". I think it's an impulsive thing. "Me have gun, need money, umgawa", that's it.

Your "thinking" is proven to be incorrect by the robbers who actually commit the crimes. Have fun.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

But now they are offering her 2k and giving her the job back? Why give her 2k????
She broke policy and was fired. They pussed out and should have stayed firm.

Offering her money and her job back is also an admission of wrongdoing on their part in a lawsuit where there isn't a very high-bar in the determination of who wins.

 

[Pogo]

LOL! What did you think they would say "Nice job you got there, be a shame if you lost it? Lets talk about that $400 smackeroos"

the truth? do you proof what they said is not true?

Do you have proof it is? Quite the conundrum

so you have no proof that she was fired for not giving back $400....quite the conundrum

We both dont have proof, but we both believe what we want. Weird huh>?

it is more logical that she was fired to repeatedly breaking the rules than being fired for not giving the $400 back.

It might be logical if that's what happened. But she was offered a choice-- pay back the 400 some other guy stole, or lose your job.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sorry you're getting lost in all that work, and no I'm not about to navigate all that.

Bottom line, I don't think a common thug hitting a Popeye's is crafting his profession on "studies". I think it's an impulsive thing. "Me have gun, need money, umgawa", that's it.

Your "thinking" is proven to be incorrect by the robbers who actually commit the crimes. Have fun.

So what are you saying -- the robbery didn't happen?

Or that he has X-ray vision and can see inside the cash drawer? Because if it's the latter he could prolly make way more money legitimately.

 

[Yurt]

the truth? do you proof what they said is not true?

Do you have proof it is? Quite the conundrum

so you have no proof that she was fired for not giving back $400....quite the conundrum

We both dont have proof, but we both believe what we want. Weird huh>?

it is more logical that she was fired to repeatedly breaking the rules than being fired for not giving the $400 back.

It might be logical if that's what happened. But she was offered a choice-- pay back the 400 some other guy stole, or lose your job.

what proof do you have of that?

 

[Gracie]

But now they are offering her 2k and giving her the job back? Why give her 2k????
She broke policy and was fired. They pussed out and should have stayed firm.

Offering her money and her job back is also an admission of wrongdoing on their part in a lawsuit where there isn't a very high-bar in the determination of who wins.

Agreed. She would have won for the simple fact that they fucked up on HOW they fired her (demanding she pay the amount stolen). If they had not done that when firing her, and she sued, she would have lost because she was not doing her duties as manager. If I were the owner of Popeyes..I would offer her a settlement, but not rehire her.

 

[Political Junky]

She'll get a good settlement after the lawsuit against Popeye's.

 

[Gracie]

Nothing like getting paid for being a bad manager.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

It would, but all it would do for effect is minimize the amount that could be stolen, which is why the policy's there in the first place. It doesn't stop a thug from coming in with a gun to try to rob the place, regardless what the amount turns out to be. Let's face it, armed robbery's a risky gig. It could pay off big, it could be peanuts. Sometimes you're lucky to get away with nothing, just to get away.

The crooks already take a risk of going to jail for years for armed robbery, and the risk of getting a low payoff surely is low on their worries list.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Firing her after the robbery compounds the tragedy.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Rules are rules. Not that much money in the till. Ever. Manager. Didn't follow the rules. Manager gets fired. That's the topic. Not who committed the crime or why. Fact is, she did not act according to the policies of the store when being manager KNEW she was not following policy. She got robbed and got busted for not following store policy. End of story.

If anybody should be fired, it is her boss who admitted they knew there was this problem of too much money. The boss is responsible when the loss actually occurs.

 

[Pogo]

And how does he know how much is in the drawer? He has X-ray vision?

Pop, you just broke a major clue in the investigation --- Superman did it!

Are you really THAT ignorant?

Never mind, the answer is obvious.

That's all you got?
Can you walk into a Popeye's right now and tell me how much is in their drawer? From the outside?

He can now tell you how much they are supposed to have in the drawer (or at least close) ... Unless the manager on duty is slacking on their responsibilities.

Hey you, I hadn't seen you there.

On the cash drawer though, one thing that keeps getting lost is this -- from the OP article:

But the only thing Holcomb could open were the registers. The gunman got away with nearly $400.
​

"Were the registers" -- plural.

If as some have suggested here the max allowed in a given drawer is $200, it only takes two registers to make "nearly $400". And in a fast food jernt with a promo going on, we can be sure there was more than one register operating.

 

[EverCurious]

I'm sorry you're getting lost in all that work, and no I'm not about to navigate all that.

Bottom line, I don't think a common thug hitting a Popeye's is crafting his profession on "studies". I think it's an impulsive thing. "Me have gun, need money, umgawa", that's it.

Your "thinking" is proven to be incorrect by the robbers who actually commit the crimes. Have fun.

So what are you saying -- the robbery didn't happen?

Or that he has X-ray vision and can see inside the cash drawer? Because if it's the latter he could prolly make way more money legitimately.

And /I/ am the one who's lost?

No, I am saying that it is not some stupid useless business policy she shouldn't be fired over like you are trying to argue, it is based on decades of research, analysis, and is a proven deterrent to robberies.

The shift manager was not fired over $400 nor the robbery, but rather because of the WIDER PICTURE. She had repeatedly failed to follow a proven business policy that was put in place decades ago specifically to deter robberies; which are /mostly/ dangerous to employees and customers (because the business gets the money back through insurance; unless the insurance has a rider that /requires/ that cash be moved from the registers to the vaults.)

Thus, it is not heartless nor cruel for a business to insist that their managers follow that particular policy as one of their primary duties, and if a manager is failing to follow policies, it is not "wrong" for the company to fire them because of it.

 

[BlackSand]

Hey you, I hadn't seen you there.

On the cash drawer though, one thing that keeps getting lost is this -- from the OP article:

But the only thing Holcomb could open were the registers. The gunman got away with nearly $400.
​

"Were the registers" -- plural.

If as some have suggested here the max allowed in a given drawer is $200, it only takes two registers to make "nearly $400". And in a fast food jernt with a promo going on, we can be sure there was more than one register operating.

... Hey there, my apologies (kind of) ... I was just being a smart-ass.
It happens sometimes ... But why am I telling you ... I think you lettered in that sport.

.