Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Find everything you need for the Galaxy S5 and discuss it in our S5 forum!
Have you seen that OnePlus One's awesome camera?? The forum is over here!

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old March 15th, 2012, 08:27 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default Right to bear arms vs. right to fire

Foiled Robbery Caught on Tape: Walgree's Pharmacist Stops Armed Gunmen | Video - ABC News

As much as I emphasis with the employee, I think the courts will uphold the firing, as employee's have very limited job protection.

OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old March 16th, 2012, 03:06 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
jayjay1122's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: I'll be where I'm at!
Posts: 1,454
 
Device(s): GS4
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 352
Thanked 338 Times in 208 Posts
Default

I fully support what this guy did in defending himself and his coworkers and I support how he did it. What that article does not definitively state is the corporate policy of whether or not it is grounds for termination just to have the gun on premises. All the article says is "Walgreen discourages its pharmacists from packing pistols"

I maintain a residence in PA and I have a carry permit in that state. I am well within my rights and the law to carry a concealed handgun. That said, my company has a clear cut "no gun policy".

If I was a betting man, I would guess that he was fired not for protecting himself and his coworkers (as the article hints), but for violating a rule of no firearms on premises. Yes it sucks, but he and his coworkers are still alive and I guarantee he will have plenty of opportunities for work.
jayjay1122 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jayjay1122 For This Useful Post:
Bearcat37 (April 14th, 2012)
Old March 16th, 2012, 03:20 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay1122 View Post
... I guarantee he will have plenty of opportunities for work.
Don't know, maybe labeled a troublemaker due to lawsuit.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Last edited by OutofDate1980; March 16th, 2012 at 03:21 PM. Reason: Grammer
Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2012, 04:57 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,428
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 318 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay1122 View Post
I fully support what this guy did in defending himself and his coworkers and I support how he did it. What that article does not definitively state is the corporate policy of whether or not it is grounds for termination just to have the gun on premises. All the article says is "Walgreen discourages its pharmacists from packing pistols"

I maintain a residence in PA and I have a carry permit in that state. I am well within my rights and the law to carry a concealed handgun. That said, my company has a clear cut "no gun policy".

If I was a betting man, I would guess that he was fired not for protecting himself and his coworkers (as the article hints), but for violating a rule of no firearms on premises. Yes it sucks, but he and his coworkers are still alive and I guarantee he will have plenty of opportunities for work.
This is exactly what will end up happening and it has nothing to do with the outcome or the law but the simple fact that he broke company policy which he agreed to. They can do it and it sucks and this is why castle law needs to be extended to one's place of employment so company policy can't override your rights. This is a clear example where years (guessing) went by with him 'violating' corporate policy while exercising his legal right to protect himself and others around him and nobody knew until the time came that he was forced to utilize it. I've worked for companies that have similar policy and my stance is don't ask don't tell. I don't even tell those at work that I'm close with that I carry and for the most part don't even discuss my interest in firearms at all. If the topic doesn't come up one never needs to lie about anything. But, much like this situation, if I ever had to use it I'm sure those around me who were alive as a result would find a way to forgive me. If it costs me a job then so be it. Innocent people could potentially be alive, myself included, due to my actions so I can live with that. Literally and figuratively. As gun culture becomes more prolific I think we'll see companies start to come around on policy which is only CYA legal wrangling at this point. The larger the assets the more they have to protect and generally the more strict the policies that are put into place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Don't know, maybe labeled a troublemaker due to lawsuit.
I can tell you that for every company that will think he's a trouble maker there will be three lined up to interview him who are smart enough to want responsible citizens who are willing to sacrifice for others in a moment's notice. Maybe not with larger corporations but I wouldn't be surprised if smaller local pro-gun ma and pa shops haven't already reached out to him. Being a pharmacist at Walgreen's isn't going to be a touch income to replace either.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OstrichSaK For This Useful Post:
jayjay1122 (March 19th, 2012)
Old March 16th, 2012, 05:14 PM   #5 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,492
 
Device(s): HTC One, Galaxy Tab 7" 2 Rooted
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,262 Times in 5,117 Posts
Default

The whole thing reminds me of our concealed carry class instructor's lecture about "What Happens When You Shoot."

Police get a call, most often via 911, and the dispatcher says something along the lines of, "shooter at the mall" or shooter on 5th and Champlain Street." That's it.

The "shooter" is you, possibly others as well, possibly the person you shot in your (hopefully) effort to save your life or the life of another innocent person. The cops WILL order and/or take you to the ground. The cops WILL disarm and cuff you. They will also VERY LIKELY take you to jail. Use your phone call for an attorney.

It's a sobering reality.

Exceptions to the above are rare, and most often in a small town where everybody knows everyone else, especially the police.
__________________



Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2012, 05:45 PM   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 752
 
Device(s): Samsung Epic 4G
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 77
Thanked 180 Times in 126 Posts
Default

wish i could carry at work. i work on a DoD installation. it wouldn't be prudent to risk serving Federal prison time just to exercise my personnal beliefs on the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA.
batgeek is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2012, 08:46 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
... I wouldn't be surprised if smaller local pro-gun ma and pa shops haven't already reached out to him. Being a pharmacist at Walgreen's isn't going to be a touch income to replace either.
I doubt smaller shops could afford the 150k base salary, weighted cost would be about 200k.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Last edited by OutofDate1980; March 16th, 2012 at 08:58 PM. Reason: Salary correction
Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2012, 08:57 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay1122 View Post
... If I was a betting man, I would guess that he was fired not for protecting himself and his coworkers (as the article hints), but for violating a rule of no firearms on premises...
You would have won the bet.

Fired for violating non-escalation policy and carrying firearms at work.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OutofDate1980 For This Useful Post:
jayjay1122 (March 19th, 2012)
Old March 16th, 2012, 09:20 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batgeek View Post
wish i could carry at work. i work on a DoD installation. it wouldn't be prudent to risk serving Federal prison time just to exercise my personnal beliefs on the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA.
I'm guessing the DoD installation has armed security guards.

Maybe a different approach is to sue over unsafe working environment.
The store was robbed previously. Management didn't provide security, therefore to protect from serious bodily injury, employee had to arm himself.

Due to gross negligence by company, employee was shot at and placed at risk of life and lost means of income, i.e., was fired.

Damages would be for emotional and physical injury, loss of income for X number of years and companies saving for not providing security, etc....
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2012, 10:09 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,428
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 318 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
I doubt smaller shops could afford the 150k base salary, weighted cost would be about 200k.
Are you trying to say that a pharmacist at Wallgreen's makes $150-$200k per year? Every year? In US dollars?
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old March 16th, 2012, 10:21 PM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
Are you trying to say that a pharmacist at Wallgreen's makes $150-$200k per year? Every year? In US dollars?
Per the OP link to the newscast. Cited a salary of 150k, weighted cost not mentioned, but my guess. Weighted cost includes insurance, retirement, workers comp, etc.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2012, 10:42 PM   #12 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 193
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 23
Thanked 39 Times in 26 Posts
Default

It varies...and varies GREATLY...depending on where you are.

In some states with not so good laws about personal protection (and the general similar public opinion that often accompanies those laws)...its never going to end well for anybody, which is a sad state of affairs all around.

In other states, such as TN for example (I live in TN)...It may not be a big deal at all.

As for the corporate decision on whether to fire you or not...it just depends on where you work and if you have any protection on a state level (workers rights)

I'm a truck driver...the company I drive for does not have any policies that say I cannot carry my pistol, but if I were to have to use it...and the media got a hold of it (as they always do)....then the company's public image is at stake and they go into "self preservation mode".

I really don't care about their image...I'm locked and loaded 24/7/365...its a cruel world out there...full of all kinds of deranged individuals.

My Glock 36...dynamite does come in small packages.



As far as a "right to shoot"...Yes, we have the right (in most states)...many states have what is often called a "Castle Doctrine"...and the text of it varies from state to state...but in TN it basically says I have the right to use deadly force to defend myself pretty much anywhere (anywhere I have a legal "right" to be)...work, Wal-Mart, gas station..anywhere.

I'm pretty well read on most states (I have to be, I travel them all)...they vary too much to give any kind of blanket opinion.
Ridgerunner665 is offline  
Last edited by Ridgerunner665; March 19th, 2012 at 09:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2012, 10:54 PM   #13 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 193
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 23
Thanked 39 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Even my kids carry guns...

A toy Sig in the holster...and a 6 shooter behind his back (he's sneaky that way)


Thats the way I raised my oldest son...he turned out OK...he is now a Lance Corporal, and an AAV crew chief...and an expert rifleman (his range score was 331...350 is a perfect score)...not bad considering he just graduated boot camp last September.




And yes...I'm a proud Papa who stands firm in his belief in the 2nd Amendment.
Ridgerunner665 is offline  
Last edited by Ridgerunner665; March 16th, 2012 at 10:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2012, 10:57 PM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
9to5cynic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: /home/
Posts: 4,858
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (Verizon) Evo 4G - retired/rooted
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 3,066
Thanked 1,762 Times in 1,189 Posts
Send a message via AIM to 9to5cynic
Default

We talked about this in my ethics class. Not this exact case, but the issue. The instructor posed the question, as to when is it okay (morally/ethically) to shoot (and kill) another person. Everyone agreed on when you are in danger (or someone else is in danger). But this is where things got a bit tricky. Say someone was robbing your house... and you walk in on them... is it okay to shoot them? What if they were not armed? The instructor then brought up all these different moral imperatives that one should look at...

Now, obviously, being as it's ethics, there is no correct answer, just how you come to your conclusion.

Very interesting class to say the least.
9to5cynic is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2012, 10:59 PM   #15 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 193
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 23
Thanked 39 Times in 26 Posts
Default

If he's in my house...its all over for him...no ethics or morals about it...he shoulda picked another house. Tennessee's castle doctrine covers just this issue...and protects you from a civil lawsuit...if its found to be a legal use of deadly force, you cannot be sued in civil court.

These laws are pretty cut and dried in many states these days (TN, TX, MT, etc)

My wife carries too...and darn well knows how to use it.

Here she is trying to decide which shoes match her 45.
Ridgerunner665 is offline  
Last edited by Ridgerunner665; March 16th, 2012 at 11:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2012, 11:06 PM   #16 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 193
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 23
Thanked 39 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Yes...I'm a certified gun nut...new to smart phones...but can hold my own with a rifle or a pistol, LOL.

I'll shut up now...
Ridgerunner665 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2012, 11:13 PM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,428
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 318 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9to5cynic View Post
We talked about this in my ethics class. Not this exact case, but the issue. The instructor posed the question, as to when is it okay (morally/ethically) to shoot (and kill) another person. Everyone agreed on when you are in danger (or someone else is in danger). But this is where things got a bit tricky. Say someone was robbing your house... and you walk in on them... is it okay to shoot them? What if they were not armed? The instructor then brought up all these different moral imperatives that one should look at...

Now, obviously, being as it's ethics, there is no correct answer, just how you come to your conclusion.

Very interesting class to say the least.
Well, it's pretty simple. Is your life in danger? If yes then shoot. If no and dude is running out your back door with your TV then no, let him go because he's no longer posing a threat. Some states will actually allow you to use deadly force to protect your belongings but for me personally that's still a no-shoot situation. It comes down to ethics (as your class would entail) and just because a law allows for something doesn't make it ethical. Shooting at other human beings gets messy in many ways, literally and figuratively so you better be prepared for the aftermath. Belongings can be replaced and lives can't. If someone is threatening my life or that of my loved ones I'm fully prepared for the aftermath and the law allows for it. If it didn't then I would still act the same. Laws are nice and all but sometimes it just comes down to right and wrong.

There was a time not all that long ago when we didn't try to legislate morality and people actually had to make logical decisions on to what was right and wrong regardless of what the law said or didn't say. People were better decision makers then. Now it seems if the law doesn't say what someone can or can't do they don't know what to do. Sad that it's come to that.

Freedom. Hows it work?
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to OstrichSaK For This Useful Post:
9to5cynic (March 17th, 2012), Bearcat37 (April 14th, 2012), breadnatty08 (March 19th, 2012), SamuraiBigEd (March 21st, 2012)
Old March 16th, 2012, 11:26 PM   #18 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,828
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,897
Thanked 2,343 Times in 1,209 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

As others have said, if there is a threat, shoot. Even if the criminal is running away, it doesn't mean he/she still isn't a threat. Its a tough call but let the cops be the detectives, only shoot if you have to.
__________________
Useful links: The Rules | The Team | FAQ | Unanswered Threads |
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2012, 11:40 PM   #19 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 193
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 23
Thanked 39 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
As others have said, if there is a threat, shoot. Even if the criminal is running away, it doesn't mean he/she still isn't a threat. Its a tough call but let the cops be the detectives, only shoot if you have to.

OK...I can't shut up just yet.

If you shoot somebody in the back, they darn well better have a gun in their hand...otherwise its gonna be difficult to prove they were in fact a threat.

Even if they have a knife...if they are more than 21 feet away (I know...who's gonna take the time to measure it in this situation?)...the law (in TN) says they are not a threat.

If they broke into my house...it doesn't matter if they are armed or not, but out in public is another story.


As I mentioned earlier...you just cannot make blanket statements on this...they are not gonna be valid for everybody.
Ridgerunner665 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 02:40 AM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,306
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 238 Times in 188 Posts
Default

I for one am a very strong supporter of gun rights....... I believe in many cases the government has far overstepped their constitutional boundaries

having said that I also have to say that I believe a private party (in this case an employer) should be able to determine their own rules regarding guns

if they dont want you to bring guns to work then you should be fired if you do not comply

after all....... if a person is anti-gun and explicitly states there are to be no guns brought into their home........ would you still expect to be ok dragging your pistol to their birthday party?

Im glad this person ended up safe along with others from what I gather....... but I see no fault in the company firing him....... they have a clear policy in place and he violated it

maybe next week I will bring some beer and drugs to work and tell my boss its all fine.... he shouldnt bother disciplining me
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old March 17th, 2012, 06:22 AM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,428
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 318 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
maybe next week I will bring some beer and drugs to work and tell my boss its all fine.... he shouldnt bother disciplining me
Bringing elicit substances to work is hardly the same.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 07:37 AM   #22 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,828
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,897
Thanked 2,343 Times in 1,209 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner665 View Post
OK...I can't shut up just yet.

If you shoot somebody in the back, they darn well better have a gun in their hand...otherwise its gonna be difficult to prove they were in fact a threat.

Even if they have a knife...if they are more than 21 feet away (I know...who's gonna take the time to measure it in this situation?)...the law (in TN) says they are not a threat.

If they broke into my house...it doesn't matter if they are armed or not, but out in public is another story.


As I mentioned earlier...you just cannot make blanket statements on this...they are not gonna be valid for everybody.
What if they are running towards your child? Someone else's child? Someone they can take hostage? Just by being a criminal, they turn themselves into a threat. If they are willing to break in to a house, store, or other place, what else are they willing to do? What else have they done in the past already?
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 08:21 AM   #23 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,492
 
Device(s): HTC One, Galaxy Tab 7" 2 Rooted
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,262 Times in 5,117 Posts
Default

I changed my mind slightly about when to draw the weapon, after the cc class last year. I'd been through other cc classes, where the emphasis was on safety, operation of the different handguns and accuracy at the range. This class had State Patrol there (the licensing entity in this state), two attorneys and two instructors. There was a lot of talk about scenarios.

Part of it is a moral decision, but most of it is pretty close to the same as something such as deciding whether or not to use a fire extinguisher: it only goes into operation if there's a fire.

I used to believe in brandishing to scare off a perceived threat. Now I don't. If there's a perceived threat, they guy is going to get shot, all brandishing does is give the creep time to shoot you. So the onus is on us as law abiding citizens to only bring the weapon out of concealment when we know/feel a certain threat to our person, not to bring it out to ward off a possible threat.
Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 08:38 AM   #24 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,828
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,897
Thanked 2,343 Times in 1,209 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
I changed my mind slightly about when to draw the weapon, after the cc class last year. I'd been through other cc classes, where the emphasis was on safety, operation of the different handguns and accuracy at the range. This class had State Patrol there (the licensing entity in this state), two attorneys and two instructors. There was a lot of talk about scenarios.

Part of it is a moral decision, but most of it is pretty close to the same as something such as deciding whether or not to use a fire extinguisher: it only goes into operation if there's a fire.

I used to believe in brandishing to scare off a perceived threat. Now I don't. If there's a perceived threat, they guy is going to get shot, all brandishing does is give the creep time to shoot you. So the onus is on us as law abiding citizens to only bring the weapon out of concealment when we know/feel a certain threat to our person, not to bring it out to ward off a possible threat.
Yep, if you draw it, you should be ready to fire as soon as it's on target.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 01:01 PM   #25 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,306
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 238 Times in 188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
Bringing elicit substances to work is hardly the same.
I beg to differ...... its exactly the same...... other things that are exactly the same:

Im not allowed to bring hookers to work

Im not allowed to bring bombs to work

Im not allowed to wear shorts and sandals to work

etc etc etc etc etc etc

its called RULES...... learn em, live em, love em

remember 1 thing.... when you are at work...... YOU are on someone elses private property.... and people should be able to make their rules on their own private property

as I said....... Im 100% on board with the 2nd and freedoms...... but some people get fanatical about the expression of those rights for some reason
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 03:54 PM   #26 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,828
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,897
Thanked 2,343 Times in 1,209 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
I beg to differ...... its exactly the same...... other things that are exactly the same:

Im not allowed to bring hookers to work

Im not allowed to bring bombs to work

Im not allowed to wear shorts and sandals to work

etc etc etc etc etc etc

its called RULES...... learn em, live em, love em

remember 1 thing.... when you are at work...... YOU are on someone elses private property.... and people should be able to make their rules on their own private property

as I said....... Im 100% on board with the 2nd and freedoms...... but some people get fanatical about the expression of those rights for some reason
Yet people get MORE up in arms about the 1st amendment. Its ok to restrict the 2nd but not the 1st?
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 04:17 PM   #27 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,428
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 318 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
What if they are running towards your child? Someone else's child? Someone they can take hostage? Just by being a criminal, they turn themselves into a threat. If they are willing to break in to a house, store, or other place, what else are they willing to do? What else have they done in the past already?
That wasn't the scenario and that's not what you said. If someone else is potentially in danger or harm's path you shoot. If you have guests or children in another room and the guy turns towards an exit but that bedroom is on the way I will probably still consider that other innocent person in danger. You're pretty clearly talking about murdering in cold blood because someone nabbed your PS3 though. To me that's just not justified and I don't care if the law does allow for it. It's not my job to execute someone for supposed past transgressions they weren't caught doing. My job is to protect myself and those close to me who have done nothing wrong.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 04:33 PM   #28 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,428
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 318 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
I beg to differ...... its exactly the same...... other things that are exactly the same:

Im not allowed to bring hookers to work

Im not allowed to bring bombs to work

Im not allowed to wear shorts and sandals to work

etc etc etc etc etc etc

its called RULES...... learn em, live em, love em

remember 1 thing.... when you are at work...... YOU are on someone elses private property.... and people should be able to make their rules on their own private property

as I said....... Im 100% on board with the 2nd and freedoms...... but some people get fanatical about the expression of those rights for some reason
No. It is not.

Not one of your scenarios is protected by the constitution as a god given right. Not one of your scenarios has a benefit or a reason for needing to bring it to work. Most of your scenarios is actually illegal by the law other than the beer. Comparing a dress code to a constitutional right is just ignorant.

Besides, I never said that his superiors shouldn't be allowed to fire him for violating a company policy as that's their right to do so. If they found out before the incident then they still could have canned him. I'm alright with all that. I'm also alright with the decision he made to ignore company policy to protect himself. If they want to assign professional armed security to each employee then I think they would have better luck telling free citizens they can't protect themselves. Until that happens it's ridiculous to think that simply saying not to protect themselves is going to be enough for every employee to obey w/o questioning.

You're trying to spark an argument with hyperbole and sensationalism when this conversation has been rather level headed. I suggest you take a step back and gather your thoughts before you continue down this path you're clearly started down.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OstrichSaK For This Useful Post:
Bearcat37 (April 14th, 2012)
Old March 17th, 2012, 05:48 PM   #29 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,828
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,897
Thanked 2,343 Times in 1,209 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
That wasn't the scenario and that's not what you said. If someone else is potentially in danger or harm's path you shoot. If you have guests or children in another room and the guy turns towards an exit but that bedroom is on the way I will probably still consider that other innocent person in danger. You're pretty clearly talking about murdering in cold blood because someone nabbed your PS3 though. To me that's just not justified and I don't care if the law does allow for it. It's not my job to execute someone for supposed past transgressions they weren't caught doing. My job is to protect myself and those close to me who have done nothing wrong.
Here's the thing though. All scenario's will be different. And decisions need to be made quickly. There are too many factors to define when its ok to shoot and not ok to shoot in black and white terms. Its just a huge grey area.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2012, 06:00 PM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,428
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 318 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
Here's the thing though. All scenario's will be different. And decisions need to be made quickly. There are too many factors to define when its ok to shoot and not ok to shoot in black and white terms. Its just a huge grey area.
That's why they apply the 'Sane man theory' and that's what would a sane man do in the given situation. If you can articulate eminent danger your chances of making it through are better both mentally and financially. You may be protected by law but that doesn't mean you won't charged by a D.A. trying to set an example because HE didn't support said law. If you end up in court your very fate rests in the hands of those 12 jurors of your 'peers' which can mean anything these days. If a prosecuting attorney convinces them that murdering someone who was fleeing with your coffee pot by shooting them 7 times in the back was done maliciously and presents a solid case you're in trouble. You killed for belongings. If you're defense attorney is able to paint a picture of self defense and preserving health and life of innocent men, women and children then you're going to present much better in court. All of that aside it comes down to your own ability to sleep at night. If I have to shoot one or several people who are in my home and present a threat to my wife and I then I will cope just fine and sleep well knowing I took scum bags off the face of the earth. If it's truly my life or theirs I will live with the decision that was made. If I made the choice to end lives over belongings (regardless of 'protected' by the law or not) then I now have to live with the fact that I ended lives over belongings regardless of scum bag factor. I'm just saying that even if you aren't charged criminally or civilly you will still have to live with that baggage for life so make decisions in advance based on clear moral conscience so when situations present themselves you are presenting lethal force for the right reasons.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old March 17th, 2012, 06:06 PM   #31 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,828
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,897
Thanked 2,343 Times in 1,209 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
That's why they apply the 'Sane man theory' and that's what would a sane man do in the given situation. If you can articulate eminent danger your chances of making it through are better both mentally and financially. You may be protected by law but that doesn't mean you won't charged by a D.A. trying to set an example because HE didn't support said law. If you end up in court your very fate rests in the hands of those 12 jurors of your 'peers' which can mean anything these days. If a prosecuting attorney convinces them that murdering someone who was fleeing with your coffee pot by shooting them 7 times in the back was done maliciously and presents a solid case you're in trouble. You killed for belongings. If you're defense attorney is able to paint a picture of self defense and preserving health and life of innocent men, women and children then you're going to present much better in court. All of that aside it comes down to your own ability to sleep at night. If I have to shoot one or several people who are in my home and present a threat to my wife and I then I will cope just fine and sleep well knowing I took scum bags off the face of the earth. If it's truly my life or theirs I will live with the decision that was made. If I made the choice to end lives over belongings (regardless of 'protected' by the law or not) then I now have to live with the fact that I ended lives over belongings regardless of scum bag factor. I'm just saying that even if you aren't charged criminally or civilly you will still have to live with that baggage for life so make decisions in advance based on clear moral conscience so when situations present themselves you are presenting lethal force for the right reasons.
Agreed. If I had to choose between me and someone else, I wouldn't have to think twice. I've had several close calls already in my life and each one has resulted in no permanent injury or fatality because it didn't have to go that far. A home invasion is a different story though, this has all happened in public places where I know I'd never really encounter that person again.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to IOWA For This Useful Post:
OstrichSaK (March 18th, 2012)
Old March 17th, 2012, 08:15 PM   #32 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 193
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 23
Thanked 39 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
What if they are running towards your child? Someone else's child? Someone they can take hostage? Just by being a criminal, they turn themselves into a threat. If they are willing to break in to a house, store, or other place, what else are they willing to do? What else have they done in the past already?
That fire extinguisher analogy up there is a good one...if there is a fire (threat), put it out.

A scumbag running for my child is gonna have 2 guns on him (me and my wife)...his chances are not good. No matter which direction he is running...he's just gonna die tired.
Ridgerunner665 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2012, 01:41 AM   #33 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 127 Times in 111 Posts
Default

To get back on topic.

What rights does a worker have to protect oneself at a place of employment?

It was established that working conditions were hazard, i.e., prior robberies.

Company did not provide security, even after prior robberies.

Are employee's required to take one for the Gipper to stay employed ?

Companies policies are not laws, if a company's policy violates a public policy, then said companies policies are void.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Last edited by OutofDate1980; March 18th, 2012 at 01:42 AM. Reason: Formatting
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OutofDate1980 For This Useful Post:
OstrichSaK (March 18th, 2012), SamuraiBigEd (March 21st, 2012)
Old March 19th, 2012, 04:41 AM   #34 (permalink)
Bread-a-licious
 
breadnatty08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: District of Columbia
Posts: 17,790
 
Device(s): LG G2, Moto G, Galaxy S3, Galaxy Nexus LTE, Nexus 7, HTC Flyer
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 5,737
Thanked 5,424 Times in 3,576 Posts
Default

I know OoD posted a bunch of questions, but I have a similar story (hope this isn't too off topic).
DC isn't your safest town, we have a bit of gun violence (okay, nothing like Baltimore). Last week there was a shooting in my neighborhood at the IHOP, at 6:30 in the morning. When IHOP first announced they were going to be open 24hrs, there was a huge uproar about potential violent/bad consequences to happen. Well, they said that there would be very frequent police visits throughout the day. Anywho, there was an off duty policeman there at the time of the shooting who "intervened".
I've no idea what that meant as the shooter got away, sounds very fishy.
Prince Of Petworth CM Jim Graham Responds to Hate Crimes at IHOP Shooting and Assault on Georgia Ave

I'm extremely anti-gun. Never have a desire to touch one, shoot one, own one. (also think hunting is pretty barbaric, okay shoot me). Given that, I still applaud the pharmacist in what he did. He likely saved lives and I'm glad he didn't kill the perps.
My question is, is it better he didn't wound/kill the perps or that he just shot his weapon as kind of a "warning signal" that he's ready to do some damage? It's obviously escalating the situation, but if he simply discharged his weapon to tell the guys "get the f out", is that okay?
breadnatty08 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 08:43 AM   #35 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadnatty08 View Post
My question is, is it better he didn't wound/kill the perps or that he just shot his weapon as kind of a "warning signal" that he's ready to do some damage? It's obviously escalating the situation, but if he simply discharged his weapon to tell the guys "get the f out", is that okay?
I say no. To me you never pull a weapon on anyone unless you are willing to kill them. Otherwise, you're just escalating the situation with no means to de-escalate it. You can't exactly put the gun away and say, "Just kidding." and you and the bad guy will have a good laugh over it. You pull a gun on someone you need to be willing to kill that person. This is the main reason why I will NEVER carry a gun. I'm never going to be willing to kill someone. I don't care what the situation is I'm not going to sleep at night knowing I killed someone. That's just me.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to A.Nonymous For This Useful Post:
breadnatty08 (March 19th, 2012)
Old March 19th, 2012, 10:24 AM   #36 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

You have to look at this from an employers perspective. If you look at statistics, you'll see that there are always going to be some accidents reported when a firearm is involved. Could you imagine the liability costs for the employer if lets say the pharmacist shot an innocent store shopper? Most employers will mandate a firearm free workplace because of the liability implications.


Here's some nice proof...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY
 
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 11:02 AM   #37 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,828
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,897
Thanked 2,343 Times in 1,209 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
You have to look at this from an employers perspective. If you look at statistics, you'll see that there are always going to be some accidents reported when a firearm is involved. Could you imagine the liability costs for the employer if lets say the pharmacist shot an innocent store shopper? Most employers will mandate a firearm free workplace because of the liability implications.


Here's some nice proof...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY
This is true. However on the flip side, what happens when people start suing for failing to provide a safe work environment? I think the best policy is no policy (meaning let the law of the land decide if people carry) and personal responsibilty.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to IOWA For This Useful Post:
Frisco (March 19th, 2012), OutofDate1980 (March 19th, 2012)
Old March 19th, 2012, 11:07 AM   #38 (permalink)
=Luceat Lux Vestra=
 
Frisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,492
 
Device(s): HTC One, Galaxy Tab 7" 2 Rooted
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 7,156
Thanked 9,262 Times in 5,117 Posts
Default

I'm in agreement with "..the best policy is no policy..allow the law of the land.."

But insurance companies argue that notion down, so that they can have a sort of pivot point for litigation. So, if retail outlets etc want insurance, they have to formulate policy wrt these things.
Frisco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 11:50 AM   #39 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
This is true. However on the flip side, what happens when people start suing for failing to provide a safe work environment? I think the best policy is no policy (meaning let the law of the land decide if people carry) and personal responsibilty.

I think employers will argue that they can provide a certain level of security for their workers. I don't even think OSHA has anything on their books that require employers to provide a certain level of protection from criminal activity. If there were federal mandates for this, I'm sure some people would be all up in arms about government intrusion.
 
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 12:17 PM   #40 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,428
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 318 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
I think employers will argue that they can provide a certain level of security for their workers. I don't even think OSHA has anything on their books that require employers to provide a certain level of protection from criminal activity. If there were federal mandates for this, I'm sure some people would be all up in arms about government intrusion.
This has NOTHING to do with OSHA or the Feds. This has everything to do with an agreement between an employer and an employee. If you won't let me protect myself then you need to protect me. This will include armed security on the premises on the property at all times when employees are present. As soon as you see what that will cost you may want to consider just looking the other way as those who are capable and willing to take on that responsibility free of charge do their thing.

All those who are anti-gun; why is it alright for people with a badge to carry/use them? What makes them worthy of the right yet not law abiding citizens?
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old March 19th, 2012, 12:58 PM   #41 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
This is true. However on the flip side, what happens when people start suing for failing to provide a safe work environment? I think the best policy is no policy (meaning let the law of the land decide if people carry) and personal responsibilty.
It's extremely hard to argue that the lack of a security guard constitutes an unsafe work environment IMO. What is the employer supposed to do. Provide a security guard 24/7? What if the employee gets mugged behind the building while taking out the trash? Does the employer now need to provide a security guard to each employee to follow them around their entire shift. It's not reasonable. The employer could easily argue that a non-escalation policy is a protection for the employee and the employee circumvented that protection by escalating the system. Every business in America has the potential of being robbed. Should armed security at every single business be a requirement?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Last edited by A.Nonymous; March 19th, 2012 at 01:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 01:20 PM   #42 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,428
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 318 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
It's extremely hard to argue that the lack of a security guard constitutes an unsafe work environment IMO. What is the employer supposed to do. Provide a security guard 24/7? What if the employee gets mugged behind the building while taking out the trash? Does the employer now need to provide a security guard to each employee to follow them around their entire shift. It's not reasonable. The employer could easily argue that a non-escalation policy is a protection for the employee and the employee circumvented that protection by escalating the system. Every business in America has the potential of being robbed. Should armed security at every single business be a requirement?
The simple solution is to allow those able and willing to protect themselves. Doesn't cost a dime.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 01:33 PM   #43 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
The simple solution is to allow those able and willing to protect themselves. Doesn't cost a dime.
Other than the increased insurance costs to cover accidents.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 01:43 PM   #44 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
This has NOTHING to do with OSHA or the Feds. This has everything to do with an agreement between an employer and an employee. If you won't let me protect myself then you need to protect me. This will include armed security on the premises on the property at all times when employees are present. As soon as you see what that will cost you may want to consider just looking the other way as those who are capable and willing to take on that responsibility free of charge do their thing.

All those who are anti-gun; why is it alright for people with a badge to carry/use them? What makes them worthy of the right yet not law abiding citizens?
I'm not arguing one case over another, I'm stating what it will come down to, corporate rights to profit > your right to safety (in this case). I know some people think that companies are altruistic entities with deep pockets that want the absolute best for their employees, but history doesn't reflect that sentiment. Hell, look back 100 years ago and the phrase workplace safety wasn't even acknowledged until the government made companies abide by a minimum level. This isn't my belief, just a harsh reality. Look at all the 24 hour shops around the country and you'll find that companies typically don't have armed security if the expense is too large based on the sizeof their business, and I'm sure they also have a policy against carrying a weapon onsite.
 
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 01:48 PM   #45 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,428
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 318 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Other than the increased insurance costs to cover accidents.
That's just silly. How many businesses have you owned or managed that had a check box for insurance about the banning of firearms in company policies?
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 01:54 PM   #46 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,428
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 318 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
I'm not arguing one case over another, I'm stating what it will come down to, corporate rights to profit > your right to safety (in this case). I know some people think that companies are altruistic entities with deep pockets that want the absolute best for their employees, but history doesn't reflect that sentiment. Hell, look back 100 years ago and the phrase workplace safety wasn't even acknowledged until the government made companies abide by a minimum level. This isn't my belief, just a harsh reality. Look at all the 24 hour shops around the country and you'll find that companies typically don't have armed security if the expense is too large based on the sizeof their business, and I'm sure they also have a policy against carrying a weapon onsite.
This is my point: If you feel the general need to ban employees their constitutional right to protect themselves from criminals then you must provide armed security. It's not right that as it stands companies can have their cake and eat it too. The loser is employees who need a paycheck.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 01:54 PM   #47 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
That's just silly. How many businesses have you owned or managed that had a check box for insurance about the banning of firearms in company policies?
I'm willing to bet that many insurance companies will either raise your premium or outright cancel your policy if you have a concealed weapon policy for your employees.
 
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 02:00 PM   #48 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
OstrichSaK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,428
 
Device(s): SGS4 stock
Carrier: VZW

Thanks: 71
Thanked 318 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
I'm willing to bet that many insurance companies will either raise your premium or outright cancel your policy if you have a concealed weapon policy for your employees.
Nobody said you have to add a policy SUPPORTING it. That's the difference. Just done add any verbiage banning it. Just allow the laws in place to mandate who should and shouldn't just as they do once that employee walks out the door. Simple as that. There are lots of insurance companies if you're that worried about it. I just don't see why a place of employment should be so drastically different than the rest of the world or that same business to customers.
OstrichSaK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 02:16 PM   #49 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
Nobody said you have to add a policy SUPPORTING it. That's the difference. Just done add any verbiage banning it. Just allow the laws in place to mandate who should and shouldn't just as they do once that employee walks out the door. Simple as that. There are lots of insurance companies if you're that worried about it. I just don't see why a place of employment should be so drastically different than the rest of the world or that same business to customers.
Because if something happens with an employee owned gun and the company didn't have a policy banning the gun, guess who is liable? In HS I worked at Walmart and one of our plain-clothed security guys tackled a shoplifter as he tried to flee. He was fired that week. I didn't see what the problem was until someone told me all the scenarios that could play out in that situation. It's risk management on the company's part.
 
Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2012, 02:25 PM   #50 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
That's just silly. How many businesses have you owned or managed that had a check box for insurance about the banning of firearms in company policies?
There is a term for a company that has an accident in the workplace involving an employee who had/has a gun - bankrupt. If an employee is killed during a robbery, it's a tragedy, but insurance covers it and it's basically treated as an act of God. It's a random incident that can't be predicted or prevented. Having armed employees running around your business is seen as a risk that can be predicted/prevented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OstrichSaK View Post
This is my point: If you feel the general need to ban employees their constitutional right to protect themselves from criminals then you must provide armed security. It's not right that as it stands companies can have their cake and eat it too. The loser is employees who need a paycheck.
Clearly the law does not agree with you. I know of no law that requires employers to provide armed security. Requiring that is a bit ludicrous. Most banks around here don't have armed security. It's an unnecessary burden to place on employers.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.