Skip to comments.Robbery suspects shot dead by N.C. Pizza Hut worker
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 ...
I agree with you, except I don’t know that the employers need to go to the point of firing an employee to maintain their protection from lawsuits.
It seems to me if they have an appropriate (for their business) policy on firearms — one that provides them legal protection from being held liable for the acts of the employee — and they take reasonable steps to impose and enforce the policy (routine reminders, etc.), I don’t see why they couldn’t reprimand the employee for violating company policy and leave it at that. This is especially true where no criminal charges will be filed against the employee — IOW, where it was determined that the Eee used the firearm in a legally justified way.
What type of claim could be successful against the Eer then?
I’m thinking Dominoe’s should be sued by the injured and robbed employee on grounds that the company knows that the delivery business can be dangerous, yet it prohibits its employees from exercising rights available to all citizens under the law.
This is the route to getting this situation fixed.
The key here is that the employer knows very well that its drivers are at risk when they do their job. It should take steps to mitigate those risks, including allowing employees to exercise the same self-defense rights they would have outside the job.
So the employee should sue them for having a policy that, had they not broken it, would have prevented them from defending themselves against death or great bodily harm.
Two can play this game.
Wow...66%! That’s pretty good! I hope he doesn’t lose his job.
April, 1974. So heinous that it has it’s own Wiki entry.
After exhaustion of appeals, Pierre was executed by lethal injection on August 28, 1987, at the age of 34.
Andrews was put to death by lethal injection on July 30, 1992.
Too many years and waaay too many appeals allowed.
This event did not do much for USAF relations in the area, nordid it help an already strained race relations issue in the county.
What an awful crime.
I also understand the history of companies’ “no gun” policies, but times have changed. We are at a point where these lawsuit-driven limits on our individual rights to bear arms don’t make sense anymore (to the extent they ever did).
The Second Amendment is about a lot of things, but one thing it is about is TRUST. It takes trust in one’s fellow citizens to have an armed society. Lawsuits have distorted that by injecting liability for the acts of another when that is not warranted.
I think it would be appropriate for an employer to fire an employee who used a gun in an inappropriate or criminal way. Defending one’s life or the life of another is not it.
Yep. Another poster said he read the guy had a “law enforcement background,” which sounded about right.
There may be an increasing incentive for robbers to do robberies in areas where the targets are not expecting trouble.
ATFOTRAF = After the First One, the Rest Are Free (Motto of character Henry Bowman in the novel Unintended Consequences)
We left Utah in late 1992, after the second execution, and moved to California. Just recently in our county, a cold-blooded murderer of a young girl was released from prison after serving a decade or so in prison. The big issue was he wanted to come back to live near where the victim’s family lived. The government more or less told the family he had a right to live anywhere. Fortunately there was enough of a hue and cry about it by the public that the government decided it was safer to relocate him elsewhere. But it is truly a sad situation when the victims or their survivors aren’t even part of the equation any more. We’re supposed to welcome these folks back, support their housing subsidies, offer them jobs, gather them in to the community.
There needs to be serious consideration of the need for justice by the victim and/or family. Liberals like to believe that people forgive and forget but time does not heal when justice is denied or cheapened. And trying to move the perpetrators back into the community just shortens a fuse already threatening to blow. Frankly, it would not surprise me to find out many private vendettas get settled in times of upheaval and disaster. It is the perfect time to “off” somebody and make it look like “natural” causes.
Had a friend that worked in a pizza joint. He said that if he was getting herded to the cooler, he'd kill the guy and find a different job. Nothing good happens in the cooler.
I think the employee had every right to blow the punk away. All I said is that I have doubts as to whether an employee of a pizza parlor would have gone through the requirements of getting a legal process to carry.
Most likely. A friend who used to work for PH says they have a written policy forbidding the carrying or possession of firearms while on duty or on company property. But at least a number of PH employees and one soon to be former employee will be alive to live another day because of one brave armed person. Kudos to that person.
I think two PH employees or former employees will be rich after the lawsuits. PH failed to provide a safe work environment.
Why would you think that?
I don’t know. I just think it.
Most of the stories I read here regarding pizza guys defending themselves say they have a carry permit. In fact, the news people make a big deal about that.
They’d make a bigger deal if he didn’t have a permit.
I notice the details of this one are scarce. I will wait until I see the full report.
If these SOBs had done that to my daughter, I doubt they would have made to trial.
At least, it wouldn’t be for a lack of trying....
I would hope so. One of my kids was involved in a hostage crisis in which one person was shot by the perp, in the back as she tried to escape. My child was not seriously harmed but I lived in dread of ever running into the perp on the streets once he was released. Fortunately he solved the problem for me. He kept “attempting” suicide and got transferred from one state to another until finally Nevada agreed to take him with the proviso that it would not do anything extraordinary to protect him from himself. A couple of months later he succeeded in doing himself in. It was a tremendous relief for me. I am reminded of Ellie Nesler who took matters into her own hands and offed the man who molested her son, as he sat in court, iirc.
I remember years ago several employees at a resturant in Texarkana Arkansas got lead into the back. All dead. Do not go back. Fight. And have your firearm available. Same as letting someone drag you into a car. Fight.
Yes. I think being “led into the back” is sufficient threat of death or bodily harm to justify opening fire on the thugs.
We’ve seen this scene before.
Most likely; but of course he won't worry about it.
Thank God he was able to protect everyone and probably save them from being executed.
There was a woman in our town who was brutally raped. The rapist was convicted on evidence and her testimony. He taunted her from prison saying he would get her when released. She would go to all his parole hearings and testify to the calls and letters she received form him. He stayed behind bars for a long time, finally wised up and quit harassing her. He was finally granted parole even over her objections. Once out he began calling her, the police told her they could not do much to protect her. She sold her business and moved away.
I'd like to think that "Fired from Pizza Hut for killing two armed robbers" would be viewed by future prospective employers as a résumé enhancer.
Buddy of mine is a field guy for a Telcom and CC’s on the job despite company regs forbidding it.
“Better to be alive for my wife/kids and looking for a new job than be dead” is how he views it.
Exactly the point in this system coddling the criminals and ignoring justice for the victims. Under the Law of Moses, there were refuge cities set up for those who needed to flee from the desire of revenge. These weren’t murderers or others who merited the death penalty, these refugees were people who accidentally or perhaps negligently killed someone. The law recognized the understandable feelings of the victims and their survivors and kept the perp and victims apart.
I think a lot of people feel this way, and rightly so.
This took some good, or close-range, shooting. No hesitation. Either of those guys probably could easily overpower most everybody else.
"I see here you shot and killed a pair of dirtbags that were trying to rob your employer when you worked for Pizza Hut?"
"Great! When can you start?"
I’ve been following your discussion about various crimes. I want to say how much worse the internet, and especially social networks, have made this situation. It never occurs to most people how easy it is for someone to stalk them from anywhere in the world or to find out where they are, who they work for, who their friends are, where their kids go to school, etc.
People never seem to think about “what happens if an evil person gets into my life?” — and there is no way to unwind all the avenues that allow a person who wants to make trouble for you, or threaten or frighten you, to do so.
We recently had friends whose mentally ill relation began to post death threats against them on Facebook, with the person’s “friends” jumping on the bandwagon and chiming in. The mob mentality became quite alarming. The police said since it was “only on Facebook,” they couldn’t do anything about it.
These friends, because of additional circumstances, are pretty scared that some wacko is going to get it in his head to carry out these threats. But even if they move, the internet will eventually allow this family member to find them, maybe find out who their friends are, etc. THERE IS NOWHERE TO HIDE if someone truly needs to. Even changing one’s identity, if it came to that, can’t change the “trail” left previously on the internet.
I think it’s very important to be very cautious with how much of yourself and your family you put online. NOTHING is 100% private.
You never know when a sick person, a criminal, a jilted lover, an ex-spouse or whoever might track you down or use your info nefariously.
I’m going to take the family to Pizza Hut this week to celebrate.
A pizza deliveryman who shot two would-be robbers to death in east Charlotte said Tuesday that he didnt draw his concealed pistol until the last possible second, when he thought he would be killed.
Throughout the robbery attempt, as the men hit and pistol-whipped him inside a cooler at an east Charlotte Pizza Hut, the driver said he kept his right elbow pinned tightly against his body holding a Glock 22 under his shirt and out of view.
He said he didnt want to use the gun unless he was forced to. But as one of the men lifted his shirt, nearly exposing the gun, the deliveryman opened fire.
The two men killed Gregory James Hardy and Dauntrae Wallace were both 21-year-old convicted felons, one on probation and one awaiting trial on unrelated charges.
“I’d like to think that “Fired from Pizza Hut for killing two armed robbers” would be viewed by future prospective employers as a résumé enhancer. “
One would hope so.
It's a small offering, but I'll gladly give it.
The worker will get fired, we know since post #4, but do we know why? Because the robbers, if they were alive now, would remain among Pizza Hut’s potential customers, and would most certainly use some of their loot on Pizza Hut products. The money comes back to us, one way or another! (I don’t have an MBA, but I do think like one, don’t I?)
Not just Pizza Hut. How many companies have security for employees and/or allow them to carry on premises?
None. It’s ALWAYS better to deal with a dead employee than a dead criminal for a company.
Employers could take the right path, it’s not impossible. It just costs more.
Therefore it’s not done.
“What was the employers rationale for this policy, assuming the employee was c/c legally?”
$ comes before right.
“Employers could take the right path, its not impossible. It just costs more.”
Is this a conservative site?
Of course it costs more. A lot more since no insurance companies will cover a company that doesn’t toe the line. Businesses cannot operate without insurance.
Quit condemning the business just trying to survive and serve customers that will go next door for a cheaper price. Focus on the insurance companies, lawyers and sue happy culture we have.
The gun store I go to affords to stay open with employees carrying openly, in Texas which is legally only inside.
How can they manage that if it’s so unaffordable?
Conservative, imo, is allowing your employees to survive attacks even if it might cost you a bit more.
Line up the lawyers and so on against the wall, but defense of the individual comes first imo. The defense of the collective company is not conservative.
Also, in Texas, there are castle doctrine laws that defy civil lawsuits in good shot cases. There is literally no reason for business to ban it here.
Yet they do, almost entirely. Political nonsense.
Excellent! You definitely don’t let the scum take you into the cooler.
No charges have been filed against the armed employee.
Because its a gun store. Every gun store in Florida has armed employees.
Without insurance the companies wouldn’t even be there.
“Yet they do, almost entirely. Political nonsense.”
Sure its nonsense, take it up with the lawyers and insurance companies