Billmanweh
Member
I think it's an interesting idea, and I'd love to see how it'd play out. I just can't believe it hasn't been tried already.
Disarmed victim zone - armed robbery at my workplace
- Thread starter Wedge
- Start date
- Status
I think it's an interesting idea, and I'd love to see how it'd play out. I just can't believe it hasn't been tried already.
Billmanweh
Member
Not at my house it doesn't. I don't need the gov't telling me that I can't decide who does or doesn't carry on my property.
As for the Walmart issue, I don't know. If it's unlawful, they're just a lawsuit away from having to change their policy.
BluesBear
member
Now I know this is just gonna break your heart.
So I'll try to be as polite as I can.
As to the chance of me ever carrying a firearm on your property.
Don't fret yourself, 'cause it ain't never gonna happen.
Uh-uh, no way shape nor form.
So I'll try to be as polite as I can.
As to the chance of me ever carrying a firearm on your property.
Don't fret yourself, 'cause it ain't never gonna happen.
Uh-uh, no way shape nor form.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
It is NOT a basic human right to keep and bear arms. It is just a right specified in the Bill of Rights. If it were a basic human right, then it would be recognized worldwide and it isn't.
I find it a little sad that many gun folks are so addicted to guns that the feel that they are completely unprotected if they do not have a gun on their person and they call places where guns are not allowed "victim zones." This shows a significant defeatest attitude on the part of the gun owners. Not only that, it shows a lack of preparation on their parts, both in mindset and practice.
A crime that happens 300 yards away isn't that surprising. Heck, on many campuses, crimes within 300 yards (radius) pretty much makes every crime that happens on campus to be within the 300 yard radius of the center of campus.
One thing the story does illustrate is that compliance definitely does NOT mean you won't get hurt. Stats presented on one of the Discovery or TLC programs stated that about 13% of people who comply still end up being injured or killed after the bad guys have secured the valuables they want.
I find it a little sad that many gun folks are so addicted to guns that the feel that they are completely unprotected if they do not have a gun on their person and they call places where guns are not allowed "victim zones." This shows a significant defeatest attitude on the part of the gun owners. Not only that, it shows a lack of preparation on their parts, both in mindset and practice.
A crime that happens 300 yards away isn't that surprising. Heck, on many campuses, crimes within 300 yards (radius) pretty much makes every crime that happens on campus to be within the 300 yard radius of the center of campus.
One thing the story does illustrate is that compliance definitely does NOT mean you won't get hurt. Stats presented on one of the Discovery or TLC programs stated that about 13% of people who comply still end up being injured or killed after the bad guys have secured the valuables they want.
JohnMc
Member
It's my understanding that they (employers) have a duty to prevent your being sexually harassed. Similarly, they should have a duty to provide, best as possible, a safe workplace. When somebody gets robbed & shot, they've failed, particularly when they've removed your ability to self defend.
In my non-lawyer world view, one could argue that's akin to disallowing safety glasses, assuming the state has determined you are OK to carry by issuing a carry permit. Which is very hard to get in NY.
patentnonsense
Member
I can certainly imagine a plaintiff winning a case like this. If there's a plaintiff lawyer handling a case of this kind in my area, I'd be interested in helping pro bono. (I also think the NRA should provide some help on these cases.)
The best case on causation would be if there is a licensed and experienced person at the crime scene who was not carrying because of the company's policy.
Some of the arguments-against posted by nonlawyers here sound to me like the assumption-of-risk doctrine which was fashionable in the 19th century: "You knew railroads were dangerous, but you chose to work there! Wheel him back to the gutter."
Intentional actions by the employer are easy to show, and there's some chance of class action claims - lawyers contact me if you want to brainstorm. (This is not my area of practice, but I'd love to help.)
The best case on causation would be if there is a licensed and experienced person at the crime scene who was not carrying because of the company's policy.
Some of the arguments-against posted by nonlawyers here sound to me like the assumption-of-risk doctrine which was fashionable in the 19th century: "You knew railroads were dangerous, but you chose to work there! Wheel him back to the gutter."
Intentional actions by the employer are easy to show, and there's some chance of class action claims - lawyers contact me if you want to brainstorm. (This is not my area of practice, but I'd love to help.)
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
So Susanna Gratia Hupp was unprepared in mindset as well as practice. Hmmmmm. Seems a little harsh to me.
Actually they're easy to get, outside of NYC. Most of the state is shall-issue, for all intents and purposes.
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
the employer knows that his insurance will try not to cover 'wrongful death' lawsuits if something happens on his property. (have any idea how many Insureds claim "No Guns kept on premises" to the insurance companies? i see inspections every day for policy holders that state they dont have guns.)
so if the insurance company wont protect from a wrongful death lawsuit, the employer has to cover his bases, by making the workplace 'weapon free'. it helps his position whenever a disgruntled employee goes on a killing spree. he can then say "I made every effort to ensure no weapons were allowed on company property."
the employer doesnt care that employees may break that policy, he can get off the hook for the liability simply by having that 'weapon free workplace'.
the only employers who do it right are the ones who have a third party security company on hand to check everyone who enters the premises. even thats not foolproof though.
unixguy
Member
Insurance as a reason for "victim zones"
Is it really true that insurance rates are governed by statistical tables and the actuaries that read them? If so, where is the disconnect occurring that causes rates to go higher if guns are allowed on work property? Have there been huge payouts (that didn't make it into the press) when co-workers were injured by a legally owned firearm?
Couldn't employers state in a policy that any firearms on company property must be kept in accordance with applicable state/federal law, and have the company be "protected" from a legal judgement?
Is it really true that insurance rates are governed by statistical tables and the actuaries that read them? If so, where is the disconnect occurring that causes rates to go higher if guns are allowed on work property? Have there been huge payouts (that didn't make it into the press) when co-workers were injured by a legally owned firearm?
Couldn't employers state in a policy that any firearms on company property must be kept in accordance with applicable state/federal law, and have the company be "protected" from a legal judgement?
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
its true that BASE rates are governed by a federal agency. a new set of rates just went into effect 10/1, causing as much as a 20% increase on some classes of liability business.
most insurance companies are 'admitted', meaning they file with the states they do business in to deviate from the nationwide base rates. these are called 'loss cost multipliers', a fancy way of saying "we think we will experience XX% of losses in these lines business so we want our base rates to be XX% higher from the get-go".
so companies have these LCM's that can be as high as they talk the state into allowing, and on top of that they file for debit/credits. if they can justify it, they can file it. so right now, i have a company that can get more than 2.5 times the base rates.
the process is complex, but basically the federal actuaries calculate losses paid nationwide, evaluate the limits of insurance provided, compare that to premiums obtained, and try to figure out if there is a pattern of losses that will dictate how premiums should be tabulated in the future.
what they dont take into consideration is location. risks in alaska are not the same as florida. we have earthquakes, they have hurricanes. so the nationwide rate changes are certainly not perfect.
up here i havent seen any losses because someone shot up the workplace. there have been wrongful death suits filed against, say, a hotels insurance company because some guests got in a shootout, which led to insurance companies trying to avoid writing hotels.
technically, having a statement in an employee handbook stating that the employee would abide by state/federal laws regarding weapons, may work. however, even a law-abiding employee with no criminal record and no history of violence could indeed 'go postal'.
you may as well try to put in the employee handbook that 'all employees will obey all laws and if they decide to break them, they should contact their supervisor immediately, giving as much notice ahead of time as possible'.
therefore, the employer feels they must make every effort to provide a 'weapon free, non-hostile work environment'. so never mind the fact that more people are attacked with golf clubs like the ones sitting in the bosses office, your slugs retrieved from the ground at the firing range pose more of a 'threat' and need to be removed, IMMEDIATELY!
makes sense, right?
most insurance companies are 'admitted', meaning they file with the states they do business in to deviate from the nationwide base rates. these are called 'loss cost multipliers', a fancy way of saying "we think we will experience XX% of losses in these lines business so we want our base rates to be XX% higher from the get-go".
so companies have these LCM's that can be as high as they talk the state into allowing, and on top of that they file for debit/credits. if they can justify it, they can file it. so right now, i have a company that can get more than 2.5 times the base rates.
the process is complex, but basically the federal actuaries calculate losses paid nationwide, evaluate the limits of insurance provided, compare that to premiums obtained, and try to figure out if there is a pattern of losses that will dictate how premiums should be tabulated in the future.
what they dont take into consideration is location. risks in alaska are not the same as florida. we have earthquakes, they have hurricanes. so the nationwide rate changes are certainly not perfect.
up here i havent seen any losses because someone shot up the workplace. there have been wrongful death suits filed against, say, a hotels insurance company because some guests got in a shootout, which led to insurance companies trying to avoid writing hotels.
technically, having a statement in an employee handbook stating that the employee would abide by state/federal laws regarding weapons, may work. however, even a law-abiding employee with no criminal record and no history of violence could indeed 'go postal'.
you may as well try to put in the employee handbook that 'all employees will obey all laws and if they decide to break them, they should contact their supervisor immediately, giving as much notice ahead of time as possible'.
therefore, the employer feels they must make every effort to provide a 'weapon free, non-hostile work environment'. so never mind the fact that more people are attacked with golf clubs like the ones sitting in the bosses office, your slugs retrieved from the ground at the firing range pose more of a 'threat' and need to be removed, IMMEDIATELY!
makes sense, right?
unixguy
Member
insurance
Therein lies my confusion. I've read in other threads that anti-gun policies are frequently provided as boilerplate to HR departments by insurance companies. Despite your explanation, I still don't understand how insurance companies can support the higher rates when guns are allowed on company property. (Unless you're saying that they write the rate and somehow get it past the insurance commission because "everybody knows that guns at work are dangerous", and therefore don't need to actually verify the claim by looking at the statistics?)
Therein lies my confusion. I've read in other threads that anti-gun policies are frequently provided as boilerplate to HR departments by insurance companies. Despite your explanation, I still don't understand how insurance companies can support the higher rates when guns are allowed on company property. (Unless you're saying that they write the rate and somehow get it past the insurance commission because "everybody knows that guns at work are dangerous", and therefore don't need to actually verify the claim by looking at the statistics?)
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
hmmm... well i think i may have misunderstood your original question. in reading some of the insurance industry magazines t he last few years, there hasnt been any mention of claims being settled because of disgruntled employees shooting the place up.
those kinds of things are big deals.
as underwriters, we dont really look at a potential insured and say "gee, they do allow guns on premises, we better not write that risk." in fact, i've never ever seen a physical inspection where an insured is on record as ADMITTING firearms are on premises. its kind of unstated-but-understood that if the inspection does NOT mention firearms, the insured DOES have guns on hand.
when we do put a debit on an account, its justified for lots of reasons. we have checklists and fill out worksheets that break out just how much we debited them and exactly why. maybe the building is over 30 years old, hasnt had any updates to the wiring, plumbing, roof, etc. maybe the building isnt fully sprinklered, or maybe they allow smoking on premises.
now, about the 'boilerplate hr thingy', yes that is how just about all businesses operate. but heres an interesting paragraph taken from the commercial general liability coverage form:
form cg0001 7/98, exclusions, paragraph a:
EXPECTED OR INTENDED INJURY
"bodily injury" or "property damage" expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured. This exlusion does not apply to "bodily injury" resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property.
this form has been revised, but i'm sure the newest edition does have similar wording, if not exactly the same.
basically, the policy will cover a bodily injury caused by the protection of persons or property.
thats good news for us who carry. but lets not go dancing in the streets just yet. the knee-jerk reaction by HR has been to forebid weapons from being present at work, because of the insane actions of a few disgruntled people.
you and i know that this policy does nothing to protect anyone. even OSHA recommends weapon free workplaces, and at one seminar i asked the instructor if he knew he was recommending a 'feel-good policy' that does nothing to protect the employees. he knew it, he admitted it, but its a CYA thing as far as anyone in HR or management is concerned.
would an insurance company raise the rates because someone was injured/killed while at work? its possible. they might even choose not to renew the policy. but in doing so, they are pretty much admitting that they feel that type of tragedy would happen again. it becomes an 'undesirable risk' to the company.
one of the duties of an insured, after a loss occurs, is they must take steps to ensure it wont happen again. so in the case of a workplace shooting, what steps would they take to ensure it wont happen again?
why, ban guns from the workplace!!! and all the other businesses follow suit.
back to insurance, no company i know of will ever ask a potential insured what their policy is on workplace violence and the steps they've taken to avoid it. nor do they ask about what steps an insured has taken to avoid sexual harrassment claims.
about all a company wants to hear is that the premises are as safe as possible from fire, flood, wind, theft, and slip-fall. we want to know that there are hardwired smoke detectors, plenty of fire extinguishers that are serviced annually, hopefully a sprinkler system, a theft alarm linked to a central station, and thats about it.
those kinds of things are big deals.
as underwriters, we dont really look at a potential insured and say "gee, they do allow guns on premises, we better not write that risk." in fact, i've never ever seen a physical inspection where an insured is on record as ADMITTING firearms are on premises. its kind of unstated-but-understood that if the inspection does NOT mention firearms, the insured DOES have guns on hand.
when we do put a debit on an account, its justified for lots of reasons. we have checklists and fill out worksheets that break out just how much we debited them and exactly why. maybe the building is over 30 years old, hasnt had any updates to the wiring, plumbing, roof, etc. maybe the building isnt fully sprinklered, or maybe they allow smoking on premises.
now, about the 'boilerplate hr thingy', yes that is how just about all businesses operate. but heres an interesting paragraph taken from the commercial general liability coverage form:
form cg0001 7/98, exclusions, paragraph a:
EXPECTED OR INTENDED INJURY
"bodily injury" or "property damage" expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured. This exlusion does not apply to "bodily injury" resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property.
this form has been revised, but i'm sure the newest edition does have similar wording, if not exactly the same.
basically, the policy will cover a bodily injury caused by the protection of persons or property.
thats good news for us who carry. but lets not go dancing in the streets just yet. the knee-jerk reaction by HR has been to forebid weapons from being present at work, because of the insane actions of a few disgruntled people.
you and i know that this policy does nothing to protect anyone. even OSHA recommends weapon free workplaces, and at one seminar i asked the instructor if he knew he was recommending a 'feel-good policy' that does nothing to protect the employees. he knew it, he admitted it, but its a CYA thing as far as anyone in HR or management is concerned.
would an insurance company raise the rates because someone was injured/killed while at work? its possible. they might even choose not to renew the policy. but in doing so, they are pretty much admitting that they feel that type of tragedy would happen again. it becomes an 'undesirable risk' to the company.
one of the duties of an insured, after a loss occurs, is they must take steps to ensure it wont happen again. so in the case of a workplace shooting, what steps would they take to ensure it wont happen again?
why, ban guns from the workplace!!! and all the other businesses follow suit.
back to insurance, no company i know of will ever ask a potential insured what their policy is on workplace violence and the steps they've taken to avoid it. nor do they ask about what steps an insured has taken to avoid sexual harrassment claims.
about all a company wants to hear is that the premises are as safe as possible from fire, flood, wind, theft, and slip-fall. we want to know that there are hardwired smoke detectors, plenty of fire extinguishers that are serviced annually, hopefully a sprinkler system, a theft alarm linked to a central station, and thats about it.
Travis McGee
Member
Perfect example of the consequences of bliss-ninny philosophy put into law.
oh contrear - (or however ya spell it)
Insurance lobbyists lobby for laws cause they don't like <-> much profit - they like <-------------> much profit - and they can achieve that level of profit by lobbying for laws that regulate/restrict others. (think seat belts - its my RIGHT to NOT be FORCED to wear them if i so chose(i don't care what the law says) - no matter how stupid that descision might be - but between the state and the insurers - both profit - since insurers don't have to pay as much out to injured drivers(since seatbelts DO reduce the number and severity of injuries) - and states can profit by ticketing non-compliers...) I'm thinking the only reason Mortorcycle people in the state of Texas won on the no helmet thing was cause insurers were like - well they usually die if they take a header w/o a helmet anyway... so it costs a lot less than patching them up if they survive but were weraring JUST a helmet.... Let darwin sort em out....
Thus - employers - trying to not dole out <------------> much money for insurance, go along w/ the insurers every whim that they can possibly adhere to. Thus saving them money for THIER <--------------> much profit.
The wal-mart example by blues i'm sure is prolly some kind of direct question to thier assuredly large lawyer crew that said that if some random wackjob walks in and blows the place to hell - vs. - some random wackjob EMPLOYEE walking in and blowing the place to hell - what is thier liability by law/insurance. (thus the distinction on if yer actually supposed to be on-duty/working at the time of "carrying")
the CORE of it all tho - is why does a company get sued because exhibit A wackjob came in and blew the place to hell? THEY didn't say to the man - i'd really like ya to come in and kill a few people.... really man - its ok. It was the WACKJOB who decided it would be a "good idea" (bleh) Company's wouldn't have to be forced (in essense) to adhere to this non-sense if it wasn't for lawyers/juries giving em up when they had nothing to do with it. (along w/ the other loads of crap....)
i'm SURE thats a dif thread tho =) rofl
J/Tharg!
Insurance lobbyists lobby for laws cause they don't like <-> much profit - they like <-------------> much profit - and they can achieve that level of profit by lobbying for laws that regulate/restrict others. (think seat belts - its my RIGHT to NOT be FORCED to wear them if i so chose(i don't care what the law says) - no matter how stupid that descision might be - but between the state and the insurers - both profit - since insurers don't have to pay as much out to injured drivers(since seatbelts DO reduce the number and severity of injuries) - and states can profit by ticketing non-compliers...) I'm thinking the only reason Mortorcycle people in the state of Texas won on the no helmet thing was cause insurers were like - well they usually die if they take a header w/o a helmet anyway... so it costs a lot less than patching them up if they survive but were weraring JUST a helmet.... Let darwin sort em out....
Thus - employers - trying to not dole out <------------> much money for insurance, go along w/ the insurers every whim that they can possibly adhere to. Thus saving them money for THIER <--------------> much profit.
The wal-mart example by blues i'm sure is prolly some kind of direct question to thier assuredly large lawyer crew that said that if some random wackjob walks in and blows the place to hell - vs. - some random wackjob EMPLOYEE walking in and blowing the place to hell - what is thier liability by law/insurance. (thus the distinction on if yer actually supposed to be on-duty/working at the time of "carrying")
the CORE of it all tho - is why does a company get sued because exhibit A wackjob came in and blew the place to hell? THEY didn't say to the man - i'd really like ya to come in and kill a few people.... really man - its ok. It was the WACKJOB who decided it would be a "good idea" (bleh) Company's wouldn't have to be forced (in essense) to adhere to this non-sense if it wasn't for lawyers/juries giving em up when they had nothing to do with it. (along w/ the other loads of crap....)
i'm SURE thats a dif thread tho =) rofl
J/Tharg!
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
i guarantee you that lawyers will bring up weapons in the workplace far more often than an insurance carrier.
they use the excuse of insurance, and that is almost never disputed or called into question. people think insurance companies are bulletproof and whatever they say goes. not true.
case in point, i may have mentioned it on here or at TFL in the past:
theres a lodge/hotel, out in the bush, operates seasonally. the hotel owners (hereafter called the Insured) hire a caretaker to watch over the property during the winter. the caretaker has his wife and child with him. they live in a small cabin/trailer seperate from the hotel.
that same cabin/trailer was covered by the policy until the insured decided he could save a few bucks by deleting it from coverage. so the caretaker is residing in a premise not covered by the policy, there is documentation out the wazoo to this effect, and the company has done their part.
well one night the caretaker and his wife go to a bar, and leave their infant child at home. i forget the cause, but a fire broke out, and the caretakers cabin/trailer burned, their child died.
not 3 days later that caretaker was in our office, livid, demanding money. he wanted a check cut to him right then and there. we hadnt even had time to review the claim, nor send it off to the company who handles all claims.
the company of course denied the claim since the property wasnt on the policy. we had diagrams when the policy was bound that showed exactly what buildings were covered.
the caretaker took it to court, and with the bumblings of the insureds retail insurance broker, fought it. they claimed they didnt know the building wasnt covered.
now when a party on the insurance side (retail agent, general agent, or company) claims ignorance, that is called an "Errors and Ommissions" risk. if we dont provide the company with all the information in our files, or if the agent doesnt have all the info or provide us with everything, there is an E&O risk. if we failed to let the agent know something about how we have written the policy, we are on the hook.
and thats what the retail agent was claiming in this infants death. they said they didnt know we had removed the cabin/trailer. we had documentation but they didnt. rather convenient?
long story short, the insurance company chose to settle after a few years in court, and the caretaker recieved a few hundred thousand for his 'loss'.
the point is, insurance companies dont typically restrict an insured to anything outside the 'reasonable' bounds of common sense. its the lawyers that do that and instruct their clients to post signs restricting weapons or to include 'weapon free workplaces'.
they use the excuse of insurance, and that is almost never disputed or called into question. people think insurance companies are bulletproof and whatever they say goes. not true.
case in point, i may have mentioned it on here or at TFL in the past:
theres a lodge/hotel, out in the bush, operates seasonally. the hotel owners (hereafter called the Insured) hire a caretaker to watch over the property during the winter. the caretaker has his wife and child with him. they live in a small cabin/trailer seperate from the hotel.
that same cabin/trailer was covered by the policy until the insured decided he could save a few bucks by deleting it from coverage. so the caretaker is residing in a premise not covered by the policy, there is documentation out the wazoo to this effect, and the company has done their part.
well one night the caretaker and his wife go to a bar, and leave their infant child at home. i forget the cause, but a fire broke out, and the caretakers cabin/trailer burned, their child died.
not 3 days later that caretaker was in our office, livid, demanding money. he wanted a check cut to him right then and there. we hadnt even had time to review the claim, nor send it off to the company who handles all claims.
the company of course denied the claim since the property wasnt on the policy. we had diagrams when the policy was bound that showed exactly what buildings were covered.
the caretaker took it to court, and with the bumblings of the insureds retail insurance broker, fought it. they claimed they didnt know the building wasnt covered.
now when a party on the insurance side (retail agent, general agent, or company) claims ignorance, that is called an "Errors and Ommissions" risk. if we dont provide the company with all the information in our files, or if the agent doesnt have all the info or provide us with everything, there is an E&O risk. if we failed to let the agent know something about how we have written the policy, we are on the hook.
and thats what the retail agent was claiming in this infants death. they said they didnt know we had removed the cabin/trailer. we had documentation but they didnt. rather convenient?
long story short, the insurance company chose to settle after a few years in court, and the caretaker recieved a few hundred thousand for his 'loss'.
the point is, insurance companies dont typically restrict an insured to anything outside the 'reasonable' bounds of common sense. its the lawyers that do that and instruct their clients to post signs restricting weapons or to include 'weapon free workplaces'.
Good points Spaceman =)
I'd just like to point out that insurance companies have lawyers too.
Why does everything seem to settle on out to lawyers? <sigh> <rofl> Why on earth has it been made so easy to "wait em out" so that its actually less expensive to say yer guilty(and pay up) than to fight it. I think if someone wants to keep a case going for years and years and years in an attempt to make the legal costs worth more than then settlement - the suing person aught to be forced to pay said legal costs... rofl.
but hey - i'm just simplistic avg joe... and not a lawyer by any means. Just kills me sometimes. Just like yer avg Joe w/ a CHL that gets his butt handed to him via lawyers after shooting a guy who breaks into his house. Just should be common sense.... the BG didn't belong there. Period.
oh well
J/Tharg!
I'd just like to point out that insurance companies have lawyers too.
Why does everything seem to settle on out to lawyers? <sigh> <rofl> Why on earth has it been made so easy to "wait em out" so that its actually less expensive to say yer guilty(and pay up) than to fight it. I think if someone wants to keep a case going for years and years and years in an attempt to make the legal costs worth more than then settlement - the suing person aught to be forced to pay said legal costs... rofl.
but hey - i'm just simplistic avg joe... and not a lawyer by any means. Just kills me sometimes. Just like yer avg Joe w/ a CHL that gets his butt handed to him via lawyers after shooting a guy who breaks into his house. Just should be common sense.... the BG didn't belong there. Period.
oh well
J/Tharg!
Sam Adams
Member
Delmar, Billmanweh
I'm sure that some bright young attorney could win such a suit, based on some implied warranty of personal protection. Maybe John Edwards after 1/1/05?
I'm sure that some bright young attorney could win such a suit, based on some implied warranty of personal protection. Maybe John Edwards after 1/1/05?
Yeah, Sam-I'm thinking the same thing. If the suit is successful, it may well set a few companies on their heels-maybe get them to buy armed guard services if nothing else.
Had an incident years ago when I was mugged at gunpoint in my employers parking lot-of course, signs on every door "no guns allowed". I bought a nice IWB holster and carried at work every day after that and nobody from management said a word about it. My direct supervisor and a lot of others started carrying too, and I was approached by several fellow employees to teach them how to properly handle a firearm. Turned out to be a fairly lucrative side job, and the fella I do gun business with sure liked the business I brought him!
The company brought in an armed guard, but he was not worth much except to use as cover. About 6 feet tall and 6 feet wide if you know what I mean. Came in one night for work and a female employee was being dragged into a car not 50 yards from where the guard was sitting-oblivious to what was happening. I blew the horn at the guard and pinned the bad guys car in and drew my weapon. I did not point it at him, but waited for tubby the guard to get his butt moving. He comes running over, sweating like a cheese wheel in a hot sun and detained the bad guy for the police. Turned out to be a former boyfriend who was stalking her.
I thought the company would fire me, but nothing was ever said. The girl, and several employees made sure that my money was no good at the Bennigans we would go to on payday after work!
Had an incident years ago when I was mugged at gunpoint in my employers parking lot-of course, signs on every door "no guns allowed". I bought a nice IWB holster and carried at work every day after that and nobody from management said a word about it. My direct supervisor and a lot of others started carrying too, and I was approached by several fellow employees to teach them how to properly handle a firearm. Turned out to be a fairly lucrative side job, and the fella I do gun business with sure liked the business I brought him!
The company brought in an armed guard, but he was not worth much except to use as cover. About 6 feet tall and 6 feet wide if you know what I mean. Came in one night for work and a female employee was being dragged into a car not 50 yards from where the guard was sitting-oblivious to what was happening. I blew the horn at the guard and pinned the bad guys car in and drew my weapon. I did not point it at him, but waited for tubby the guard to get his butt moving. He comes running over, sweating like a cheese wheel in a hot sun and detained the bad guy for the police. Turned out to be a former boyfriend who was stalking her.
I thought the company would fire me, but nothing was ever said. The girl, and several employees made sure that my money was no good at the Bennigans we would go to on payday after work!
BluesBear
member
Delmar, I tip my hat to you sir, for doing the right thing.
We all must fight the good fight.
We all must fight the good fight.
Billmanweh
Member
Then maybe some bright young attorney could find where it's already happened. There have been many episodes of workplace violence. I'm sure someone has sued based on this "implied warrany of personal protection". Which I guess you think means that your employer should be able to keep you safe from robbers and armed lunatics?? Unless your employer has been negligent somehow in providing adequate security, I just don't see what you're basing this claim on. You just don't have any right to carry at work. Ask the bright young attorney why he can't carry at work (courtroom) himself.
Nice Job Delmar!
The "guards" at my old workplace were nothing more than radio toting call the cops types. Some took it semi-seriously - but mostly of the type you mention - or the other extreme - like 70 years old and don't see too well.
J/Tharg!
The "guards" at my old workplace were nothing more than radio toting call the cops types. Some took it semi-seriously - but mostly of the type you mention - or the other extreme - like 70 years old and don't see too well.
J/Tharg!
Billmanweh
I could accept the notion of decent guards at my place of employment and leave my pistola at home-or at least in my vehicle.
I think the beef here is the liability of a company to its employees IF they deny your right to personal defense, and yet provide absolutely nothing in place of it.
My current employment has the dreaded 30.06 signs at all of the entrances, but the current guard-while a very nice older gentleman, is in no way, shape or form ready to stop a minor attack in the parking lot. My job is in the middle of a commercial park-well off the main and side road, and makes a very easy target for anyone to stop, rob, murder at their whim and get away in a couple of different directions.
True, my company does provide a sercurity guard, but it is absolutely laughable. The day shift guard tried to break up a fight between two female employees, and they tore him a new one! And these two women weren't exactly amazons in build, either.
Where does the right of a company end and the rights of the employee begin? If we accept the notion that private companies have total control over their people, and can do whatever they wish-then why do we have organizations like OSHA and others to force companies to follow safety regs? Could the companies have just told the government to buzz off and tell their workers either accept the danger of the job or leave?
BTW, my old job was not in a bad part of town, but it was rather isolated. If I were an employer, I would seriously consider all the "normal" precautions, such as badge entry, cameras and whatnot, and would also consider a professional armed guard service, or at least a service with guards and dogs.
I'd bet the red tape involved in actually getting employees themselves hired and trained as armed security would be next to impossible-the insurance companies would likely throw a fit, but somewhere in this mess, there has to be a reasonable alternative other than being an unarmed victim.
I could accept the notion of decent guards at my place of employment and leave my pistola at home-or at least in my vehicle.
I think the beef here is the liability of a company to its employees IF they deny your right to personal defense, and yet provide absolutely nothing in place of it.
My current employment has the dreaded 30.06 signs at all of the entrances, but the current guard-while a very nice older gentleman, is in no way, shape or form ready to stop a minor attack in the parking lot. My job is in the middle of a commercial park-well off the main and side road, and makes a very easy target for anyone to stop, rob, murder at their whim and get away in a couple of different directions.
True, my company does provide a sercurity guard, but it is absolutely laughable. The day shift guard tried to break up a fight between two female employees, and they tore him a new one! And these two women weren't exactly amazons in build, either.
Where does the right of a company end and the rights of the employee begin? If we accept the notion that private companies have total control over their people, and can do whatever they wish-then why do we have organizations like OSHA and others to force companies to follow safety regs? Could the companies have just told the government to buzz off and tell their workers either accept the danger of the job or leave?
BTW, my old job was not in a bad part of town, but it was rather isolated. If I were an employer, I would seriously consider all the "normal" precautions, such as badge entry, cameras and whatnot, and would also consider a professional armed guard service, or at least a service with guards and dogs.
I'd bet the red tape involved in actually getting employees themselves hired and trained as armed security would be next to impossible-the insurance companies would likely throw a fit, but somewhere in this mess, there has to be a reasonable alternative other than being an unarmed victim.
Billmanweh
Member
I think it's pretty well established that they have a duty to provide you a safe working environment. But I don't believe they have any responsibility to let you carry a firearm at work. And in the absence of letting you carry at work, I don't believe they accept any further responsibility for your safety.
The best example I can think of is if you come over to my house and I don't want you carrying inside my home (for whatever reason). It's perfectly within my rights to ask you to either leave or not carry. That doesn't mean I've taken your life into my hands. And if some lunatic breaks in and kills you that somehow I'm at fault.
BluesBear
member
Ah there's the rub.
Let us say, for the sake of saying, that one of us fine upright legally permitted gun toting people were to accept an invitation to your home.
We know that you prefer that we don't being a firearm into your house as we, being the friendly sort, understand your feelings and we are willing to not pack in your domicile.
Would you deny us the courtesy of leaving our gun in our automobile parked in your driveway?
THAT'S what really torques my nuts about most business policies.
I can very well understand an employeer asking employees not to carry at work. Not so much because it's a liability but because it could be a distraction. But to say I can't drive to work, and I for one have in the past had a job where I commuted 50 miles each way, leave my legal firearm safetly stored in the trunk of my car, and then after my day is done retrieve said weapon and then go about my business.
I am sorry but there is no way you can look at that and say that at least some of my RIGHTS have been denied me.
edidet fro speeling (BIG difference between committed and commuted!)
Let us say, for the sake of saying, that one of us fine upright legally permitted gun toting people were to accept an invitation to your home.
We know that you prefer that we don't being a firearm into your house as we, being the friendly sort, understand your feelings and we are willing to not pack in your domicile.
Would you deny us the courtesy of leaving our gun in our automobile parked in your driveway?
THAT'S what really torques my nuts about most business policies.
I can very well understand an employeer asking employees not to carry at work. Not so much because it's a liability but because it could be a distraction. But to say I can't drive to work, and I for one have in the past had a job where I commuted 50 miles each way, leave my legal firearm safetly stored in the trunk of my car, and then after my day is done retrieve said weapon and then go about my business.
I am sorry but there is no way you can look at that and say that at least some of my RIGHTS have been denied me.
edidet fro speeling (BIG difference between committed and commuted!)
Last edited:
Billmanweh
Member
well, I'm in 100% agreement with you there.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
