Taco Bell
Previous Post
Next Post

While Taco Bell’s slogan may be Live Mas (Live More), a would-be robber almost got the chance to live a lot less when he strolled into an Akron, Ohio, location and found at least one employee to be anything less than an easy pushover to rob.

According to a 19 News (Cleveland) report, witnesses told police an armed man strolled into the Taco Bell in an attempt to rob the restaurant and fired shots at an employee. To his undoubted shock, the employee produced his own gun and fired back, striking the bandit.

He quickly fled the scene and turned up shortly thereafter at a hospital with “a gunshot wound to his upper body.” Police told the news channel the man’s injuries were non-life-threatening and the employee was not physically injured in the altercation. Another man, who dropped the wounded criminal off at the hospital, was arrested and charged with robbery. As soon as he is out of the hospital, the 35-year-old robber faces robbery and other charges as a result of the incident.

We’ve all read cases like this where companies frown upon and have even fired employees for defending themselves or attempting to stop crimes from occurring in their place’s of business.

One notable case occurred last April at a Georgia Lululemon store where two employees attempted to stop three thieves who brazenly marched into the store and began grabbing merchandise. The two employees, who told the thieves “no” and ordered them to leave and then followed them to their car to get a license plate, were fired. A move company CEO Calvin McDonald stood by in an article with CNN even as the company came under heavy public criticism for the move. The whole incident was caught on camera.

Company management would’ve probably crapped itself had one of the young female employees trying to protect Lululemon’s interest for the likely minimum wage pay they were making whipped a Glock from her body-hugging Lulu’s. But then, Lululemon isn’t Alexo Athletica, which makes fitness wear designed to accommodate concealed carry, such as their women’s Matte 7/8 Carrywear Legging.

In a twist of irony in the Lululemon situation, the men were ultimately arrested, likely due to the efforts of the fired employees.

There is no word if Taco Bell will come down on its employee for defending his life and those of the other people in the restaurant at the time of the robbery. We’ll have to keep an eye out for that one. Either way, at least the good guys one on this one and the right people all walked away with the correct number of holes in them.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • A happy ending for the shooter, he’s dead, self-inflicted…

      • Do you ever get the feeling that if the AP doesn’t say it, it never happened? No one seems to be able think unless the AP says it’s ok first.

    • Gun free school zone in Iowa? Story l read said 7 minute response time. Sounds like the principal was forced to try the unarmed takedown attempt. My sympathies.

      That so rarely works.

      When will we learn? Armed resistance reduces casualties…

      • Well, according to Elaine B, a TTAG writer and a liberal gun gunowner. She said School staff should not carry firearms. Because she said children will huge the teachers. And learn they carry guns.

      • This shooter story will go away in 24 hours. Because the murderer is a “tr@nsf0rmer”.

      • XZX, if you find yourself unarmed in an unpleasant situation the rule of thumb is, “Charge a gun. Flee a knife”.

  1. Anyone who doesn’t carry in this “society” now, is just not payin attention or depending on someone else to protect em!

  2. “But then, Lululemon isn’t Alexo Athletica, which makes fitness wear designed to accommodate concealed carry, such as their women’s Matte 7/8 Carrywear Legging.”

    So, ya just had to work in a ‘shilling’ effort into the article.


    • I don’t pay for access to TTAG, and I fully understand that everyone has to make a living, so I don’t begrudge any free-to-view web page its adds and even paid posts if they are clearly identified as such. But over the last few years it seems like the line between reporting and paid content is blurring here a bit. Perhaps the reporting on the politics of firearms (my reason for visiting the page) is still reliable (at least, I haven’t found that I’ve been mislead here), but it’s not a good look.

      • I’m okay with advertising on websites. Even creative ways of advertising on websites. The people who put up a website deserve to make an income from it. And there are many creative ways to make that income.

        The “gun industry” in general has grown tremendously. Businesses have expanded into areas most people never considered in the 1970s.
        Because most gun owners were man.

        So I’m glad to receive information about the many different new products. That are out there in the “gun industry”.

        The Fudds are the real problem we have in the “gun community”. They are what used to be called “the old stick in the mud.”

        Advertisement is a way of passing on information to people. You don’t have to buy their products.

    • And it was quite a stretch. Dougie could have found an example that involved firearms but then he wouldn’t get a piece of the action. Expect more and more of this.

      • The sad part is its not even clothing that’s suitable for conceal carry

        For example > https://alexoathletica.com/product/mens-active-shirt/

        That shirt advertises “and just the right amount of flow at the bottom to help conceal” > now granted, it doesn’t specifically say for conceal carry of firearms for that specific item but look at the page context for the shirt in the ‘mens’ section at > https://alexoathletica.com/shop/men/ > it clearly implies ‘gun carry’. Yet the T-Shirt is not even a proper conceal carry T-shirt, and take a look at how long it is…

        First, its not even the proper length for a mans T-shirt. Its what is called ‘athletic length’ which is what they call it when they want a T-shirt to appeal to a younger ‘demographic’ western market with clothing sized for the Asian countries market where the height for males is generally shorter than the western countries.

        Second, its too short for conceal carry. A proper conceal carry T-shirt (for males and females), and a proper length T-shirt (for a male) is to an area about one inch above the bottom of the crotch (to the bottom of the zipper plaket in the pic) and not up towards the hip line (at the pocket tops in the pic) like that T-shirt.

        Third, in its description it says its “Cut loose for carry, but shaped for a flattering fit” > the description is contradictory. You can’t have it both ways in a T-shirt you want to use as your outer garment for concealed carry. Either its cut loose for carry or “shaped for a flattering fit” – the problem here that’s causing the contradiction is the ‘shaped’ which is another way the clothing industry says ‘tailored fit’ which means for conceal carry purposes egregious ‘printing’. For a proper conceal carry T-shirt outer garment you need a shirt that has actually been styled and cut loose and not ‘shaped’ (e.g. ‘tailored’) cut. And the women’s clothing are just as bad for conceal carry, cut for ‘shaped fashion’ rather than actual practical conceal carry.

    • I caught that too. A blatant plug for the outfit that plagues our screen with rather skanky clothing adverts. Naming the specific product the gal at the TacoBell could have been wearing IF she was, uhm “cool” enough to be able to afford this clothing line on her enry level paycheck.

      She done good, this woman, “takin’ care a bidniss” appropriately. ANyne else catch the lack of any information beyond “her Glock”, in contrast to the detailed and specific mention of “the right product” which WE dvetise for them….

      just a bit in yer mug…

      • this robber hurt ALL of us.. he ried torob a store, putting the store’s hardworking and loyal employees in mortal danger. Then he wasted piles of OUR tax dollars getting the folks at the hospital tto patch him up again. He will now waste a pile of tax dollars taking up residence in a jail facility, tax funded, then on to the courts, with public defender, judges, etc, spemding more tax money. IF he is sentenced (he should be, from all we see here) more tax money will be dumped down the sewerpipe to feed, shelter, guard him for the duration of his sentence.

        YOUR attitude is an YUUUUUGE part of why our economy is takning, and chaos is overtaking our society.

        This robber hurts ALL of us.

      • Speaking for myself, I don’t want people to die. I want criminals to die, preferably before they hurt anyone. Death is most definitely a strong deterrent to crime. I’ve not read of one single criminal who crawled out of his grave, to continue his career of crime.

        Given that people are going to die, I prefer that the criminal does the dying, not the innocent victims.

      • What if they hurt or wind up killing someone CLOSE to you?

        Mom, dad, sister, brother, etc?

        Would that ‘count ‘?

        While fictional, think of Peter Parker in Spiderman letting the criminal go that later kills his Uncle Ben…

        You wanna be in that position in real life say, because you FAILED to take out a bad guy who later steals a car and blows through an intersection at 90 miles an hour killing people in the process?

        Get the fuzz outta your navel so you can see and not trip over your own shoelaces…

      • busy, seems you have things about backwards. We don’t want to kill anyone, but if we have to choose between my life and a criminal’s, I will defend myself within the law.

      • “why do you want people to die?”

        Beef, I don’t want people to die, what I want is for anyone who contemplates using physical violence to ‘force reparations’ to be so so concerned that they may be injured or killed to make the mental connection that they say to themselves “If I do that, my ass may well be shot dead”…

  3. Let’s be honest about something: an upstanding business owner with employees does NOT want his/her employees to risk their lives, whether for themselves or his/her business.

    That easily translates into company policy where employees should not try to stop an armed robbery for the sole purpose of sparing the monetary loss for the company. Why? Employees who minimize their interaction with an armed robber minimize the probability that the armed robber injures employees. So, policy which minimizes employee interaction with armed robbers maximizes employee health. And that means not trying to stop an armed robber from stealing.

    Notice that company policy which minimizes employee interaction with armed robbers in no way, shape, nor form discourages employees from defending their lives. If a robber bursts into a fast-food restaurant and holds a knife to an employee’s throat before demanding money from the cash registers, the focus at that point is saving the employee by any means necessary. On the other hand, if an armed robber brandishes a handgun in a holster and demands money, I believe the highest probability of employees surviving that encounter means stepping away and letting the armed robber grab the cash and leave unimpeded.

    • While your point is true, and money can be replaced, this instance showed the robber to fire upon the employees apparently unprovoked. I’m sure there is a low quality video of the incident as you can’t flick a booger these days without being on video. Every store and corner has a cam watching something or someone…….not to mention the camera and microphone you have in your pocket all day long.
      I own my own business. Prior to that I worked in a family owned business. I carry every single day. I have employees who carry and it doesn’t bother me. We don’t typically deal much in cash on a daily basis so there is little reason to attempt a robbery on our facility. However if one did decide such, they would be met with significant resistance, the level being determined by the type of weapon and amount of force.
      I see the little shitty no guns signs all the time at businesses in my state. Fortunately, they hold no legal power and are little more than a passing amusement. If I was employed by a company that disallowed firearms, I’d change jobs. Kudo’s to the employee though, since after being fired upon they not only returned fire, but scored a hit that required medical attention. They should be giving that person an award.

    • sorta correct… BUT these days with tthe utter disregard for the value of life, there is not even an hint of a guarantee any robber will not turn and fire upon anyone who happens to be on site. All it takes is about three tenths or a second for that armed robber to take half a turn, swining his gun’s muzzle your way, and a gentle litle squeeze, and YOU are dead.
      Further, the more often those present at wuch an attempt shoot back, the stringer the message “don’t mess” gets. Used to be armed robbers were almost always caught and convicted. Now with the let them have their way” mentality is open season, and no consequences when they ARE caught. Seems they all travel with a Get Out of Jail Free Card these days. Time to give them a “Go directly to jail do not pass go do not collect $200” card instead. Better yet, a one time one way ticket to the basement where they will be fitted with a custom hand-signed toe tag.

      • Tionico,

        Your points are valid: I thought about them as well and opted to not type them–to keep my comment a bit shorter.

        Maybe a better way is to describe some armed robberies as falling into a “gray area” of just how unhinged the armed robber appears to be. Certainly, when an armed robber busts in shooting or immediately puts a knife to someone’s throat, they are completely unhinged and immediate forceful resistance is probably the best course of action for the victims. On the other end of the spectrum is the robber who makes it clear that he/she has a weapon and is robbing the place–and yet appears to be cool-headed and not outwardly unhinged, and has not directed his/her weapon to any victims yet. While such an armed robber may very well decide two seconds later to murder someone and that justifies responding with deadly force before that two seconds elapses, such an armed robber may indeed be cool-headed and walk out with the cash without physically harming anyone if the employees simple back away. Either way I want the employer to leave that decision strictly up to their employees discretion for self-defense purposes.

        At any rate, my main point is that righteous employer policies tell employees, in the event of an armed robbery, to prioritize their lives and de-prioritize company cash.

        Disclaimer: the above is my humble opinion and NOT legal advice nor security advice. I am not an attorney nor security expert. Seek legal counsel and security advice from experts in your jurisdiction.

        Disclaimer: the above is my humble opinion and is NOT legal advice nor security advice. Seek counsel from legal and security experts in your jurisdiction.

    • Let’s be even more honest:
      Sumbitch walks into a business threatening people’s lives with whatever weapons he is carrying, his life should be forfeit. The individual who does the deed should be rewarded. No one should ever be penalized for stepping forward to stop a criminal.

      I’ll draw the line at gunning down petty shoplifters who never offer any violence, but the armed felon should be assuming ambient temperature at the earliest opportunity.

      • Paul,

        I empathize with your sentiment.

        I was merely stating that it makes sense for employers to tell their employees to NOT risk their lives in order to try and stop a cash loss at the hands of an armed robber.

        Saying it a slightly different way, the ONLY reason that an employee should employ deadly force during an armed robbery is to save lives–that employee should NOT employ deadly force during an armed robbery to save company cash. (If an employee dishes out deadly force during an armed robbery to save lives and that action happens to save the company’s cash, that is a fine byproduct of the employee’s actions.)

    • Management are more worried about sued by the perp or the perp’s family and the effect on their D I E score. Also, management in their lofty towers also assume the perp only wants the money and will leave everyone unharmed if they comply.

      But the perp may not be in a rational state because of stress and recreational pharmaceuticals or may be out to prove their street cred. Most criminals are not experts in safe firearms handling. And so lives are at risk.

      And since management considers employees to be disposable and favors corporate risk over employee safety, the poor frontline employees are left to fend for themselves.

  4. When a company, business, or establishment in Texas posts a 30.06 sign at the entrance, they are telling everyone including employees that they do not care about people getting shot. It’s pretty cold blooded for employers that don’t provide insurance.

    • sour cream is not the only ingredient applied there via caulk gun.
      where do you have to live to not have a ghetto taco shop nearby?

  5. I expect Taco Bell will likely take the cowardly route and fire the good guy. it is, after all, the modern corporate approved lawyer sanctioned approach. If I had to work in a place that was open to the public I would still carry, but defending the cash register that belongs to a soulless corporation is as low on my priority list as it is possible to get!

    • “I expect Taco Bell will likely take the cowardly route and fire the good guy.”

      Fired and black-balled.

      He/she will never flip a burger again in that town….

  6. Eat at Taco Bell in P Ks and four hours later your serving up some offensive loads of your own, I’m here to tell yah.
    Splat gat

    • No argument there, possum, especially if you ask my wife. She sends me down to the man cave for a spell, even after her beloved Chipotle. Now, that Baja Dew stuff goes down pretty smooth, however.

      • Forgot to add, there’s usually more syllables used than necessary to communicate her desire for me to go to the basement.

        • You would think, but her tongue-lashings are usually in Spanish, her native language. I suppose it flows more freely. She can go nonstop for 7 minutes, even while breathing in, without any repetition that I can detect. In English, not so much, it usually becomes Spanglish, which frustrates her, and then the skillet comes out.

  7. I understand that I will be fired. When I pull my gun to save the life of myself and the store management team.
    Freedom is messy.

    I will live another day and go find another job.

  8. I’m a retired cop and retired Military and I will defend my fellow workers and my self if I can do it without making the situation worse!

  9. I think there is more to this story. Chances are the Robber walked in and demanded money and when the employee refused to give him any he opened fire. This makes way more sense than the Robber just walking in and starting to shoot. It was stated that the Robber was given money so the question remains was it after or before he started shooting?

    if it was the employee that caused the gunfight then he was an idiot for starting a gun fight in a crowded restaurant. He should be fired. He should have just given the robber the few bucks in the cash register. Let’s face facts the robber was photographed and the parking lot had cameras as well so starting a gun fight was just plain stupid if that is indeed what happened.

    • dacian the DUNDERHEAD, Other than your “I think”, do you have any tangible or real evidence of your “version” of events?

      The employee is a hero. He did what you hoplophobes are scared to do.

      Oh, by the way, did you ever find out the firing sequence of a cartridge?

  10. when I worked in the ‘service industry’, if someone wanted to have the store’s money, I wasn’t going to try and stop them. Whole different story once they start shooting, though.

    • Yep. I worked in a gas station after I returned from service. Back then we didn’t use a lot of plastic. It was mostly cash. I told the boss that since I closed the station at night I was going to carry a gun. And I told him it was not to protect the companies money. It was to give me a fighting chance if the bad guy got ignint.

      He agreed with my reasoning.


  12. Methinks that there might be more to this story than just a failed ‘robbery’. Did any witnesses hear the guy announce a robbery? Did he walk in and start shooting at this particular employee without any provocation? Since the employee was already armed, maybe he was expecting someone coming after him at his work place? Grudge? Gang banger payback? Revenge shooting for something that happened elsewhere? It would be interesting to see if there are any connections between the two — just sayin’.

Comments are closed.