Taser fails, clerk resorts to gun (or, fired for breaking company policies?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because this is capitalism and that is the perk of being able to own private property. As the owner of my own property I am free to tell you you cannot wear shoes on my property, and if you do, I have the right to ask you to leave. And if you do not I have the right to charge you with trespassing.

So you can keep black people from coming to your business?
 
Ah. There it is. The all mighty buck. More valuable than moralist ideals and human lives any day of the week.


nope its a matter of me staying in biz, which in turn is about me being able to feed my family. Mistakes are one thing, willfully breaking policy is another.

What you just said in bold, TAB, IS precisely another way of saying, in essense:

The all mighty buck. More valuable than moralist ideals and human lives.

So what you meant to say was:

YES. It's a matter of me staying in biz, which in turn is about me being able to feed my family. Mistakes are one thing, willfully breaking policy is another.

I have no problem necessarily with that stance - a man does need to feed his family - but let's not lie about it. The reality is, to you, money IS more important than a principled moral policy. Period. Fine. Admit it. Be proud of and support that stance, not duck and dodge the truth.
 
Tab writes
If he broke company policy, he should be fired.

Until the Americans with Disabilites act was passed in July 26 of 1990, in some places it was allowable to ban guide dogs.

Do you think a restraunt manager with the blanket company policty "No dogs allowed" on July 25 1990 should kick out a blind man and his guide dog, and that if he tolerated the blind man and his guide dog, he should be terminated?

Often, policy is WRONG. It is so wrong that a LAW must be enacted to override all the companies still demanding obedience to a wrongheaded policy.

This should be the case here. Any company that prevents an employee from properly arming himself should be a legal target for anyone who has harm befall them where a weapon could have prevented it.

Tab also writes
nope its a matter of me staying in biz, which in turn is about me being able to feed my family. Mistakes are one thing, willfully breaking policy is another

You know, when a lot of businesses in the south started taking down the "Whites Only" and "Coloreds" signs before laws demanded they do away with such segregation, they often had customers come up and tell the establishment owners/managers 'Ill never do business here again if I have to mix with them Colored Folk" Should those buinesses have caved into the allmighty dollar and said 'sorry, blacks, you got to stay segregated, we don't want to loose the business of some very rich white folks!'
 
"So you can keep black people from coming to your business?"


As a business owner and property owner I have the right to refuse service or employment to anyone I so choose. Thats free market buddy. Its not perfect but its better than Socialism.
 
As a business owner and property owner I have the right to refuse service or employment to anyone I so choose. Thats free market buddy. Its not perfect but its better than Socialism.

Let me know how that works out for you..........anti- discrimination law suit and all.
 
As a business owner and property owner I have the right to refuse service or employment to anyone I so choose. Thats free market buddy. Its not perfect but its better than Socialism.

No, you do not, buddy. I was around when this was being hashed out in the courts. You are ignorant of federal law. Wanting something to be true does not make it true.
 
I have another bone to pick with that alltogether. I am not racist by any means. I have friends from many different ethnicities but it is Bull $&** that some punk could sue me because he says I'm not hiring him because he is a certain color, when it is clear he does not have the required education or experience or has a S&^tty work history. And the damn government will back him up and say I have to hire him and three other minorities regardless of if there are other more qualified candidates.
 
The downside of having company policies against self defense is that it encourages criminals to rob the clerks who don't feel up to breaking the rules to protect their lives, and it sends the messages to other employers that it's a good idea for them to do the same. Not good at all.
 
Agreed Yellowfin. I hate the policy but support the right of the owner to decide what can take place on their own personal property.
 
Do you have any stats to back up that claim? I can see where drawing a gun at the wrong time could turn things ugly fast.

Having worked in gas stations in college and working for them now doing other things( mainly remodels) Every single one I have ever talked to has always said, let them have what ever they want, its not worth your life.

I used to manage places like this, while getting my degree. We had the same policy. That didn't stop the thugs from killing one of my clerks. He didn't resist, he didn't fight, but he is dead. If I had been fifteen minutes early, I would be too. If I had to choose a reason that I began carrying, that would be at the top of my list.

Personally, I think the clerk needs a larger caliber or more range time.
 
This is where Civil Disobedience comes in to play. Same thing with College campus carry as well.
 
nplant

Although I don't agree with TAB, you guys gotta understand that he's being literal. When he says "if you violate company policy, you should be fired," he IS NOT saying, "if you carry a gun and defend yourself, you should be fired."

atleast some one got it.
 
sorry guys but after reading up to post 38. I cant read anymore. This thread is bad news. Just keeps making me upset
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top