Posted on 09/28/2010 6:41:42 AM PDT by fightinJAG
Police say a North Carolina pizza restaurant worker being herded toward a cooler pulled a gun and shot and killed two robbers.
Multiple media outlets reported today that police were searching for a third man who got away from an east Charlotte Pizza Hut restaurant.
Authorities say the robbers burst through the restaurant's front door late Monday as two workers were cleaning up in the back.
Investigators say the suspects ordered the two employees into a walk-in cooler, then started beating one of the men. The other employee pulled a handgun and opened fire.
(Excerpt) Read more at hamptonroads.com ...
If a gun store can afford it, why can’t the others?
Apparently this Pizza Hut guy was already forced to quit. Do you approve of that?
I’ll take it up with the lawyers, politicians, insurance companies, and companies that won’t pay the difference to allow their employees to protect themselves.
Most of the time there really isn’t any insurance case. Will Pizza Hut be sued over this whether he’s fired or not?
There are companies that DO allow employee carry. For me, it’s as much a deal as a company saying blacks have a higher crime rate and are a bigger liability and therefore can’t be hired.
I simply CAN NOT abide by a company firing someone for a legal self defence act.
So, what has to happen is to make firing the employee more financially painful than not firing him.
Financially, probably nothing unless people really boycott.
Ethically? That’s another story. And that’s always a 1-way road when it comes to the HR department in companies.
“Will Pizza Hut be sued over this whether he’s fired or not?”
No, Pizza Hut will be sued when something happens by someone carrying who breaks the law. Not when someone does something like this.
Exactly.
It’s a reactionary plan.
As far as I know, conservatives don’t believe in reaction to possible legal threats when acting legally.
If that was the case, we’d bow down to islam and koran burning. Oh wait.
Frankly, there’s not much to stand up for in the USA anymore I guess.
Reactionary?
No its an unfortunate reality.
They don’t have to do it. There are many companies that allow it.
They choose to. I worked at a fortune 500 company, HR fired a guy for being in a fight when he was attacked entirely.
Another guy got fired for having a gun in his car, legally, in their parking lot.
Are these things ok with you?
My first thought, too.
Given the alternative, if I were the employee, I’d take getting fired.
My CCW instructor - a police chief - stated that if you’re ever asked to lie face down on the floor or are herded into another room, go for broke, armed or not - they’re statistically likely to kill you anyway.
Good advice. I am not on Facebook but my kids are and I have access to their pages. I am constantly amazed at the information people post about themselves. If it isn’t totally inane, it is dangerously revealing. Stalkers are a true nightmare.
I have heard that advice also.
Google (and if they don’t, someone else will) is developing a search capability based on photos. People will be able to ask Google to take a photo and search for others that match it anywhere on the internet. Imagine how this will mine out all those Facebook pages, etc. — even photos that were not posted by the individual himself.
The interview I saw, the Google person said that, for example, you’d be able to take a pic on your cell phone of someone on the street, then load it into google and search for any matching photos anywhere on the net. So your cousin posts a photo with you in at his birthday party in Dallas and someone can find that photo if they have one of you already. Think about it.
I imagine this technology will be a long time in coming. But it is coming.
How would someone whose violent perp was being released from prison feel knowing how easy it would be for them to be “found” by that perp, no matter where in the world the victim was?
I think it’s very important to limit the “life” one creates online.
Okay, now that I have seen a better report, I am glad to see that the worker (a deliveryman) DID hold a valid concealed carry permit. He is 57 years old, and delivers pizza at night as a second job, and works days as a landscaper. If the original report had shown a little more about the man, I would not have questioned whether he held a valid permit. Most pizza workers are kids, that is why I withheld my reasons for doubt. I am glad I was wrong.
That’s scary. Think of the implications of the government being able to identify folks at a rally protesting its policies. Think of a crime scene photo where the perp could identify potential witnesses. Let’s hope it is a looooooong time coming, if at all.
Exactly.
Sigh.
Exactly.
Would PH fire the guy if he had picked up a mop and bludgeoned the robber to death? Or a knife laying on the counter used in preparing food? What if he had just fought the robber with his hands and the robber fell down, hit his head and died?
At some point, if robberies, especially of delivery drivers, are this prevalent, PH is liable for not allowing drivers to protect themselves within the law. Seems to me this is the lawsuit PH should fear.
Drivers have to file suit saying that PH is knowingly putting them in an unsafe work environment and then not protecting them and not allowing them to protect themselves within the law.
I do understand the employer’s point of view to some extent, the rationale that if robbers think all employees are armed, they may be quicker to shoot first in the commission of their crime.
However, when a company, especially one where its employees, apparently, are regularly robbed and even killed, has a no gun policy, it is also easy to argue that they are inviting more armed robberies.
Seems to me that a company would be in a better position to not have any policy on gun possession. The company can still prohibit wrongful conduct on the part of its employees (such as wrongfully threatening someone, etc.).
If you are an officer of the federal government, the doctrine of sovereign immunity says that the government can only be sued / be held liable for your conduct if it was within the scope of your office (at the minimum, NOT CRIMINAL).
It should be the same for companies when it comes to gun crimes, because carrying a gun in a constitutional right and often necessary for self-defense. IOW, the company shouldn't be punished through lawsuits for respecting someone's right to use his own judgment on how to exercise his constitutional right to carry a gun and his legal right to self-defense.
What such a policy would look like is this:
If an employee illegally carries or wrongfully uses a gun, then the company should not be liable. Maybe the only circumstance would be when intentional negligence on the part of the employer was proven (e.g., the company knew someone was bringing a gun to work for the purpose of harassing a co-worker and did nothing).
If the employee carries and uses the gun within the law, e.g., for self-defense, then there's also nothing for the employer to be liable for.
OTOH, at some point the employer should be liable for knowingly putting its employees in an unsafe work situation and then not protecting them and prohibiting them from protecting themselves.
If it takes legislation to exempt employers from liability for gun CRIMES of employees, so be it.
“If an employee illegally carries or wrongfully uses a gun, then the company should not be liable.”
I agree, that is not where we are at though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.