Posted on 09/28/2010 6:41:42 AM PDT by fightinJAG
I wondered this too. Still and all, I like stories with a happy ending.
Surprised that there hasn’t been a breaking news alert that the employees have been promptly fired by Pizza Hut.
7-11 was notorious for firing it’s clerks when they defended their own lives during robberies.
Darn, that’s pretty good, drawing down on three men and getting two of ‘em. That guy must spend a lot of time on the range and some natural talent as well...
I would not be surprised to start seeing metal detectors for the employees to walk through and nothing for the customers.
If they DON’T fire him, I’m going to order some Pizza Hut for my cube mates! Need to follow this...
sumthin must be in the water as of late...
The Des Moines Register, Des Moines, IA, 04/03/08
State: IA
American Rifleman Issue: 7/1/2008
Pizza Hut deliveryman James Spiers thought he was making a routine delivery, but he was walking into an ambush. As Spiers approached, an armed man sprang at him with a gun, but Spiers, a concealed-carry permit holder, was no easy target. Police say Spiers struggled hard with the assailant until he was able to produce his handgun. “It was a long ordeal ... my life was, without a doubt, in danger,” Spiers recalls. Spiers shot the suspect three times. The suspect fled and was arrested at the hospital. Pizza Hut summarily fired Spiers, a 10-year employee, citing a corporate policy forbidding employees from carrying firearms. To voice your displeasure, call Pizza Hut Corporate Offices at 800-948-8488 or visit pizzahut.com.
I just re-read this yesterday...don’t know if the number is still valid. Go to http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/ and select IA to see this story...a lot of others out there also, but this one seemed applicable...
I hope that PH really thinks about the possible ramifications, rather than firing this fine employee. PH has too many stores that can be boycotted if a firing takes place.
What was the employer’s rationale for this policy, assuming the employee was c/c legally?
I’m certain in the end it had to do with their own liability for the acts of an employee. But it seems as though they could work out some way to protect themselves legally and still not fire people who were legitimately defending their lives.
This seems especially to be the case where the employer, by virtue of the location of the store or the nature of the business, is putting the employee at risk of bodily harm.
Would the company rather have to hire armed security guards for each pizza store?
Good for this guy, otherwise they could all be dead, well done.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_Murders
Bottom line
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.
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.