Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Disarmed victim zone - armed robbery at my workplace

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Wedge, Oct 4, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wedge

    Wedge Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,611
    Hey everyone, I work in Rochester NY at a major university. There was an armed robbery on campus about 5 minutes before I got to work and about 300 yards from where I enter my building.

    Here is the news report:
    http://www.iknowrochester.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=7B14A51C-3CF7-49D8-BBEF-13DCFE13B0DD

    Pretty scary stuff. I don't carry to work because to do so would jeopardize my career, my education and my freedom (felony). Sounds like situational awareness failure to me...but I still think a firearm in the hands of the workers could have stopped the robbery. They complied with the robbers and still got shot. I am thankful they weren't murdered.

    I have some major thinking to do about this one. Unfortunately I believe that my chances of being caught with a firearm on campus is way too high to risk it. Everyone knows how pro-2a I am, mostly coworkers were my references for my permit.

    mods if this belongs in a different forum please move it.
     
  2. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,107
    You mean the gun free school zone is not a magical force field that prevents guns from being brought into the zone?
     
  3. Delmar

    Delmar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Cedar Bluff, VA
    Sorry that happened, Wedge. Hope the victims are recovering, too. IMO, it is a truly stupid situation when the government makes you a criminal just because you pack the gear to defend your own life.

    I would like to see the lawsuits come flying against governments/businesses who deny citizens the right to defend their lives and property. Some of them have no issue with suing the gun makers for alleged underhanded business practices, in one of the most heavily regulated businesses on earth.

    Maybe its time to turn the tables on them with the tactics they use.

    My own company has a great big sign with the no weapons symbol-the infamous 30.06 sign.

    Told the boss-Hey, its company property and I am not going to disrespect you regardless of the idiocy of the corporation's stand on weapons, (gets funny look on face), but it would be a smart thing if you did not advertise it to every bad guy in the universe! I guess I have to cut them slack, as the HQ is in New Jersey!

    If the day comes when so much as a hair on my head is harmed because you refused me my right to defend myself, I'm gonna pack so many lawyers up this company's posterior that you will think they opened a branch office.

    It seems to me there is history of some kind relating to victims bringing lawsuits of this nature, but I have not heard how they turned out.
     
  4. Billmanweh

    Billmanweh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    D/FW TX
    I'd be curious to hear that as well. I just can't imagine you winning a lawsuit like that. They have every right to not allow someone to carry a gun on their property. And knowing that you can't carry, you choose to work there.
     
  5. Delmar

    Delmar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Cedar Bluff, VA
    I see your point, Bill-but after all, the robbery took place on government property, and I am of the belief that if you take away my inherent right to self defense, you assume the responsibility-or am I making any sense:banghead:
     
  6. Billmanweh

    Billmanweh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    D/FW TX
    No, I see your point. But I'm not sure they've taken away your right to self defense. You have the choice to work there or not. I just think it's an interesting legal question. I'd be very curious to see how a case like that would turn out (or has turned out if it's already been tested)
     
  7. Delmar

    Delmar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Cedar Bluff, VA
    I think its interesting, too. One would think that with all the drivel going on in the name of the law-hot coffee suits and all, could we please sneak a few of these under the radar:D
     
  8. Wedge

    Wedge Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,611
    Well I looked up the penal law and it is only a Class A mis. not a felony. Still something I don't want to deal with. I could handle being fired but I don't really feel like going to jail.
     
  9. BluesBear

    BluesBear member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    Messages:
    7,672
    Location:
    The Great Pacific NorthWet
    Since we are all supposed to have all of these workplace rights...

    You know, freedom from harassment and such.
    Freedom from an unhealthy workplace and such.
    Accessability for all and such.

    Since companies have to bend over backward to ensure that none of the horrible conditions mentioned above ever happen why is it unreasonable to demand that they also protect you from harm since they will not allow you to protect yourself?

    The you choose to work there doesn't apply.

    Would you suggest to a woman that if she doesn't want to be complimented about her bustline that she find another workplace? "I'm sorry Jane, but since you grow those breasts on your own there's nothing we can do. If you feel the need to be protected from sexually suggestive remarks perhaps you should find a profession that will allow you to wear coveralls." You'd be run out of town on a rail with your feathers ablaze from the burning tar covering your sexist pig epidermis.


    Hells Bells™ in my perfect world, having a carry permit and choosing to carry at work would quality as supplimental training and education and be a benefit to the company. It would thereby entitle you to a 25¢ per hour pay bonus.




    I recall reading about a strip-bar that was sued because the dancer's stage was not wheelchair accessable! Even though the customers portiin was.
    It seems that no one in a wheelchair had even ever applied for work there. Possibly because any qualified applicants already knew in advance they would be too tired from struggling to get onto the stage to be able to properly perform a pole-dance.
     
  10. Billmanweh

    Billmanweh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    D/FW TX
    I just can't believe that would fly in court. If you come over to my house and I won't let you be armed, I don't assume any responsibility to protect your life.

    The difference with your sexual harassment argument is that employers have the right to keep you from carrying a gun, they don't have the right to sexually harass you.
     
  11. Delmar

    Delmar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Cedar Bluff, VA
    Well, Billmanweh-I ain't commin over to your house. I'm waitin for Blues Bear to open a shop:D
     
  12. LASur5r

    LASur5r Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    108
    Location:
    soCal
    A man's got to do

    Wedge,
    Each person has to weigh the consequences of packing, especially in many places where it is prohibited....most of California (at least where I live...soCal) a person has to weigh the worth of what his/her life is to that individual. Things may change for you if you are a parent or married then you are responsible for the safety of that other person.
    It's a heavy responsibility.
    So...your job? How does it compare to your life? Your career? How does that compare to your life? Only you can make the decision for you.
    I've had over 15 jobs...each one could have been a career.
    I've had to face people who wished to do me and my family harm...over the amount of the jobs....Each time, I was glad I carried an always gun. Never had to fire my weapon in defense of my life....(knock on wood!) :banghead: I'd hate to think what would have happened had I not had my handgun.)
    Good luck with your decision.
     
  13. RobW

    RobW Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    Henderson, NV
    Looks like the most rediculous lawsuits will always win, the serious cases have a chance like a snowball in hell.

    There are a lot of people relentless destroying a country that once was the light of freedom and liberty. :barf:

    May be the late outcome of the hippie-era with all the "sex, and drugs, and rock 'n' roll".
     
  14. carebear

    carebear Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    I think one of the only ways to gain legal standing for a lawsuit would be for a victim's family to sue the denying organization for a violation of civil rights. But I think you'd need a dead victim for that to work. Much like a harrassment/hostile workplace suit, the right has to be violated first, you can't get preemptive remedy.

    The "you chose to work there" argument, as stated above, hasn't insulated businesses from civil rights lawsuits based on equal opportunity issues, the trick would be getting a judge to allow the case on the argument that self-defense is a right, and that by denying the victim the right to carry, the business prevented that victim from exercising that right and thus caused his/her death (the actual civil rights violation). The evidence to present would then be the Lott and Kleck data on the efficaciousness of armed self-defense in preventing/deterring violent crime.

    If you could get to trial, the business/organization at hand would then be placed in the position of proving that you are safer disarmed, which raises the responsibility question and, as I assume they would be entered as defense exhibits, would force HCI and Brady's "studies" to meet public and legal reviews for accuracy.
     
  15. Billmanweh

    Billmanweh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    D/FW TX
    Well, you do have the freedom to start a business and then choose if you want people carrying firearms on the premises or not. And you have the choice of not shopping there or working there as an employee.

    You'd rather force someone to allow firearms onto their property against their will? If it's my business, I'd rather have the choice left to me.
     
  16. Billmanweh

    Billmanweh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    D/FW TX
    You don't have the "civil right" to carry a firearm wherever you want.


    even then, it becomes a question of how much at fault the business owner is. I think almost anyone in their right mind is going to blame the murderer, not the business owner.


    businesses don't need reason to not want armed people on the premises. they wouldn't have to prove anything of the sort.
     
  17. carebear

    carebear Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    Bill,

    The civil rights violation is the wrongful death, not the prohibition on firearms. The case would be to show that the prohibition on being armed was a proximate cause of death.

    Of course the murderer is to blame, just like in a sexual harrassment case the harasser is to blame. However, just like in the harrassment example, businesses are held accountable for providing a remedy for the victim and for providing a harrassment-free environment in the first place and have to defend their actions therein. That's why they have to pay the big bucks AND change their policies if they lose or settle the suit.

    Ah, but if you can get the judge to buy off on the civil rights violation argument they WOULD have to show why their policy was not a proximate cause of the violation.
     
  18. Billmanweh

    Billmanweh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    D/FW TX
    Ok, I misunderstood your "civil rights" comment.

    I just can't, in my wildest imagination, see a jury ruling that not allowing you to carry a firearm was the proximate cause of death. I mean, it's an interesting argument, but I can't even fathom it happening that way in a trial.

    I just don't think the sexual harassment argument applies either. You are legally required to provide a harassment free workplace. They aren't under any kind of requirement to allow someone to carry a firearm.
     
  19. Billmanweh

    Billmanweh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    D/FW TX
    I don't think that's correct either. I believe that you would have to prove that, had you been allowed to carry a gun, it would have kept you from being shot. Which is probably just this side of impossible.
     
  20. spacemanspiff

    spacemanspiff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,067
    Location:
    alaska
    the harrassment comparison is an interestint analagy. i was ready to come in stating that no civil rights were violated since the person CHOSE to work at a 'victim disarmament zone'.

    but in considering how much effort an employer must make to ensure that all employees are in a non-hostile environment, i think my opinion must be changed.
     
  21. Billmanweh

    Billmanweh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    D/FW TX
    the only way I think that argument applies is if the business is shown to be negligent. that is, a bank owner in a high crime area doesn't hire a guard and has no video surveilance, etc. they were so careless that they are at least partially to blame. seeing as how most people feel safer without guns around, no jury is going to claim they were negligent in not allowing guns on the premises.
     
  22. spacemanspiff

    spacemanspiff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,067
    Location:
    alaska
    given my new thought process on this, i think it does apply.

    since it would be a civil rights violation for an employer to ignore an employees request to stop being harrassed, which would affect that employees morale and quality of work performed, isnt it also the same to be expected to be disarmed?

    its one thing if an employer has safety procedures, such as restricted access to the building, with guards and metal detectors and whatnot. the employer in that situation has provided a somewhat secure environment. but if there is no provisions, then the employer really can be held liable.
    at least, in my non-lawyer, 100% amateur, unedumacated, homeskooled opinion.
     
  23. moa

    moa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,154
    In a somewhat related issue, back in the 1980s we had a shooter enter our office building and kill three people and shoot a number of others. A friend of mine got shot.

    I do not have all the details, but apparently my friend and others sued the security guard company, and apparently the issue was quietly settled out of court. One of the things that happened is when the shooting started, none of the security guards called 911. They just ran even though they were not close to the action, and they had time.

    I am not sure if the employer was sued as well. Would not be surprised. I also would not be surprised that as part of the settlement, no disclosure agreements had to be signed by the plaintiffs. Everything was very hush-hush.
     
  24. carebear

    carebear Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    Bill,

    Heck, I don't think you'd be able to find a judge to even let you take it to trial, much less get a jury to buy off on it. But that's the argument I'd lay out. :D

    I think the key would come down to the policy manual. If it is written in such a way that the "weapons free" policy is directly stated as a "workplace safety" measure, they would have to show why that policy was in fact effective in providing safety even though you died.

    For example, if a person dies in a factory from a fall and his family sues, the business is forced to show what their policies are to prevent such falls and why they are sufficiently effective that all responsibility rests on the victim.

    If they say "well, we had a "no gun" policy and Disgruntled Bill came in and started shooting anyway, we did all we could" they open the door for the plaintiff to introduce the Lott study on how concealed carry laws (policies) actually reduce violent crime and reduce its severity.

    I think.
     
  25. BluesBear

    BluesBear member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    Messages:
    7,672
    Location:
    The Great Pacific NorthWet
    Yet more flawed logic

    It is a basic human right to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a basic human right to sexually harass someone.

    Read the Constitution, it affirms my right to bear arms. No where does it say I can fondle the secretary's tasty bits.


    As for me personally, I prefer for people I invite over to my home to carry. Anyone who I wouldn't trust with a firearm in my home, I wouldn't trust in my home without a firearm either.

    And if you don't trust me in your home with my firearm then it's obvious we are not friends.


    Billmanweh, perhaps you can explain this to me. (No you can't but I am sure you will try.):neener:
    I used to work for Sam's Club which is a division of Wal-Mart. (for brevity I'll refer to them as WM/SC)
    WM/SC gladly welcomes shoppers who legally CCW to shop in their stores. As a WM/SC employee I was not afforded that same courtesy. NOw I am not talking about carrying in a WM/SC while working, I am talking about lawfully carrying while shopping in a WM/SC.
    That's right.
    Off the clock, on my own time, on my day off, if I had been caught so much as with a gun in my car, in the parking lot of ANY WM/SC anywhere on the planet, it would have meant my immediate termination.
    Now that's just plain wacked any way you look at it.

    Why should a company's employee be a second class citizen?

    Billmanweh you are obviously blessed to have never felt the need to find a job that doesn't infringe upon your human rights. I sincerely hope that never changes.

    And the next time you're shopping at WM/SC feel free to look down your nose at the employees. Since the employees of the largest single private sector business IN THE WORLD are beneath you.
    Some of them NEED that job.
    Let's just hope they never have the NEED to protect themselves, or their family, on their way to or from work.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page