Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Salty, Oct 15, 2013.
then is fired.
I'm puzzled. If that information -- that the clerk had a handgun -- was critical to the investigation of a series of unsolved armed robberies, Nashua, New Hampshire police were under absolutely no obligation to confirm or deny it. Why would they cripple their own investigation? Please note, too, the clerk -- Bear Cochran -- was apparently fired before the police publicly confirmed the information, so it isn't even a matter of them being responsible for his termination. It is simply unfathomable that they would confirm a second-rate publication's inquiry regarding the clerk having a handgun when the information might help them solve the robberies.
As to the company's policy of not allowing armed clerks on the job, I understand it. Some people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns under any circumstances. Bear Cochran obviously is not one of them. Nonetheless, he violated company policy, and from the posting by his wife on their Facebook page, he knew drawing the weapon, even though for the very valid reason of protecting his life and, consequently, the assets of the store, would likely result in his termination. He was prepared to accept it, given that the string of robberies the Nashua PD is trying to solve involved suspects who were not afraid to harm their victims. I think he made the right choice for himself. Obviously he -- and I, too -- believe his life and safety are more important than his job.
Bear will get another job. The issue I have with this whole thing is why the police screwed up their own investigation. That, to me, was pointless and extremely counterproductive, and leaves a guy -- or guys, or gals, even -- unafraid of harming people out on the street, and someone is likely to wind up dead. All because someone in the Nashua PD couldn't resist confirming a piece of information for a reporter. What utter stupidity.