Another Store Clerk Fired for Refusing to be a Murder Victim

[regulator 0]

turtlespeed

***>He lost his, but he is alive.

And out of a job for putting the customers of a store at risk of death. If, as he said, he fired blindly into a public space, he's an idiot who is better off working in a place where he cannot put anyone at risk.

I'd like to know what you would have done in his situation.
--------------------------------------------

Let me guess....run in front of the guy and bend over to take one for the team?

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi rick,

Quote

the important thing is they are alive

I agree. I do want to lessen the arsenal that some people have. I see no need to own a AR-15; but that is just me.

I do not support taking all guns away from the citizenry.

I do support:

- In-depth background checks
- A reasonalbe waiting period
- Very harsh penalties for anyone using a gun in a crime

I bought a 22 rifle when I was 13 with my earnings from my newspaper route. I just went up to the local shoe/hardware store and asked him if he had any used rifles. It was a Remington single-shot, bolt action & I paid $5 for it. The cleaning kit cost me $7.

JerryBaumchen

PS) After that rifle, I have never owned a gun; often thought about one for in-house safety.

[regulator 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

Tell that to the kid who chewed a pop-tart into the wrong shape or the woman banned from her kids school for displaying a permit on her facebook page. The point of the article was to bemoan the ridiculous nature of zero-tolerance policies about firearms and how they steadily creep into more and more aspects of life.

Different issue.

Like I said above. Republicans are against minimum wage, against taxes on business, against restrictive labour laws. Yet they want the government to force businesses to allow their employees to bring guns to work?

If you don't like where you work, quit. And in the true American spirit, if you aren't smart enough to work anywhere other than the corner store...then you are just lazy.

--------------------------------------------------
That implication is absolutely asinine.

[wmw999 2,116]

What other implication would be reasonable, since it's the violation of business policy that the employee was fired over?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 212]

wmw999

What other implication would be reasonable, since it's the violation of business policy that the employee was fired over?

Wendy P.

What would have been your acceptable worse case scenario here?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,116]

My acceptable worst case scenario? It doesn't matter, it's not my business. I do think that a terrorist coming in and bombing the place would be very bad; so would its being targeted by a drone because a known major drug supplier was inside. A gas leak would be really bad.

As far as what they expect from employees? If all of their employees are trained in guns, are not likely to rattle easily, and pretty much always show good judgment, then I don't see why they wouldn't allow guns.

And we all know that your average 7-11 clerk is all of those things, right?

The worst case scenario in this subset for an unarmed clerk is a store full of dead people and the guy getting away. The worst case scenario in this subset for an armed clerk is a store full of dead people and the chain being sued by the families of each of those people. The suit is less likely to be expensive if the robber killed all the customers, than if an employee did.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,380]

>I'd like to know what you would have done in his situation.

In a similar situation? I've been mugged, and I first became aware of it when the guy's arm went around my throat. The outcome was the same; the mugger ran away. I didn't even need a gun. (Inconceivable, I know!)

In the exact same situation? If I couldn't see, I might still draw the gun. I wouldn't fire on him unless I could see him. That's not any kind of a brilliant insight - it should be basic to anyone who owns a gun.

[champu 1]

SkyDekker

Quote

Tell that to the kid who chewed a pop-tart into the wrong shape or the woman banned from her kids school for displaying a permit on her facebook page. The point of the article was to bemoan the ridiculous nature of zero-tolerance policies about firearms and how they steadily creep into more and more aspects of life.

Different issue.

Like I said above. Republicans are against minimum wage, against taxes on business, against restrictive labour laws. Yet they want the government to force businesses to allow their employees to bring guns to work?

If you don't like where you work, quit. And in the true American spirit, if you aren't smart enough to work anywhere other than the corner store...then you are just lazy.

Zero tolerance policies towards firearms cause/give an excuse for administrators/employers to take actions that harm people and do nothing to curb firearms violence, and these are all examples of that. The propensity to quip "them’s the rules" in such situations seems to be more closely correlated to an overall concern about firearms rights, than the right of administrators to do their jobs or employers to run their businesses as they see fit. Maybe that's owed to my cynicism, especially on this forum.

Also, I just stated my opinion making no mention of forcing anyone to do anything, who cares about Republicans? My President, US Representative, Both US Senators, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State Treasurer, State Councilmember, State Senator, County Clerk, Mayor, and City Councilperson are all Democrats.

[rickjump1 0]

The gun culture is really big where I live in Montana, but I never thought I would want one of those little modern muskets, the AR-15 (Colt M4). I bought one because the response time for a 911 call can be an hour plus if our local deputy is out of pocket, and I'll admit I couldn't hand it back to the kid showing it to me. It brought back a lot of memories.

My first gun was a single shot .410 (Santa) and my brothers and I had a family single shot Sears JC Higgins .22. I delivered the Independent Journal as a kid in Marin County, California, and later(still a kid) bought a 30-30 when living in Florida.

I pretty much agree with everything you support (with the exception of limiting the number of firearms a person may own). I do find it hard to believe the small number of people this government has brought to justice for lying and presenting false information in background checks. It seems it's easier for them to disarm the whole public.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[devildog 0]

SkyDekker

***http://lastresistance.com/3630/another-store-clerk-fired-refusing-murder-victim/"These days, if you want to work for a franchise like a convenience store, you have to agree to their terms, which may include being someone’s murder victim. Most of these places have 'no tolerance' policies, which prevent their employees from being able to defend themselves with any kind of weapon. You’re not even allowed to try to fight off a perpetrator. You’re supposed to do whatever the criminal wants; give him all the money from the safe, let him steal your car, give him a medium dark roast coffee. Or, if the armed robber feels like it, also give him your life."

If you don't like the terms of your work agreement, don't accept the job.

Pretty much this. I'd carry at work, if work allowed it. Even though FL allows CCP holders to have a firearm at work in their vehicle if the employer does not, I'd rather not risk butting heads with the power that be and I just stay unarmed during my 8-5.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi rick,

Quote

I pretty much agree with everything you support (with the exception of limiting the number of firearms a person may own).

I did not say that; I said: I do want to lessen the arsenal that some people have.

This may have been a miscommunication. I meant as to type of weapon not quantity.

JerryBaumchen

PS) I am a Mech. Engr. and 'things' really intrigue me. I am very sure that if I had an AR-15 in my hands there would be some 'Oh, I would like to have one of these' thoughts. I still do not feel that an AR-15 is necessary for self-protection.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I still do not feel that an AR-15 is necessary for self-protection.

It should not be, but I think it is better to be better armed than the attacker.

Would you prefer you, or they have the better weapon? And what possible law will actually prevent them from getting the better weapon?

I don't think it is actually possible for a law to prevent a criminal from doing something. I don't think a law actually prevents a criminal from getting something (If it did, we would not have a drug problem). So since I don't think any law will prevent a criminal, I would prefer that the law does not prohibit an honest citizen.

[rickjump1 0]

" I do want to lessen the arsenal that some people have." Sorry for the miscommunication.
I guess you don't approve of surplus little Davy Crockett tactical nuclear devices being in the hands of civilians. Am I getting warm? I can go with that.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Backintothesky 0]

Yeah that's exactly what their policy is.

REALLY!

What you are saying below is bullshit. Sensationalist exaggaration.

Not being allowed to carry a firearm at work does not mean you cannot defend yourself. You don't need a firearm to defend yourself - of course in some situations it would be "preferable" to say the least.

It may shock you to know that countries that don't allow you to purchase a firearm for the purpose of self defence still allow you to defend yourself and defend yourself with lethal force if necessary.

He wasn't fired for defending themselves, he was fired for discharging a firearm at work when he wasn't supposed to be carrying one. If he had disarmed the assailant, they had produced another weapon and he had then opened fire with the assailant's original firearm then he probably wouldn't have been fired. And if he had then he would have had a good law suit against them.

And before you jump to conclusions, I own a number of firearms.

Quote

You’re not even allowed to try to fight off a perpetrator. You’re supposed to do whatever the criminal wants; give him all the money from the safe, let him steal your car, give him a medium dark roast coffee. Or, if the armed robber feels like it, also give him your life."

[rickjump1 0]

Backintothesky

Yeah that's exactly what their policy is.

REALLY!

What you are saying below is bullshit. Sensationalist exaggaration.

Not being allowed to carry a firearm at work does not mean you cannot defend yourself. You don't need a firearm to defend yourself - of course in some situations it would be "preferable" to say the least.

It may shock you to know that countries that don't allow you to purchase a firearm for the purpose of self defence still allow you to defend yourself and defend yourself with lethal force if necessary.

He wasn't fired for defending themselves, he was fired for discharging a firearm at work when he wasn't supposed to be carrying one. If he had disarmed the assailant, they had produced another weapon and he had then opened fire with the assailant's original firearm then he probably wouldn't have been fired. And if he had then he would have had a good law suit against them.

And before you jump to conclusions, I own a number of firearms.

Quote

You’re not even allowed to try to fight off a perpetrator. You’re supposed to do whatever the criminal wants; give him all the money from the safe, let him steal your car, give him a medium dark roast coffee. Or, if the armed robber feels like it, also give him your life."

That quote involved one perpetrator who did overcome the victim. He could have very well killed the victim for resisting. You might fight off one perpetrator with a can of spam, but what if there were six? I'm sure "other" countries might encourage you to fight back and even train you with a bat or bear spray, but not in this case. Lots of ifs. The victim here lost his job, but he is alive.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[davjohns 1]

rickjump1

" I do want to lessen the arsenal that some people have." Sorry for the miscommunication.
I guess you don't approve of surplus little Davy Crockett tactical nuclear devices being in the hands of civilians. Am I getting warm? I can go with that.

Ummmm....I hate to interrupt another silly argument...but I've searched for where I can get one of these devices and come up empty. Can you provide a a link, please? Christmas is coming, you know.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Backintothesky 0]

You are absolutely right, he could have killed the victim. Thank god he didn't.

The point is not with the situation, but with the sensationalist reporting of it. He was NOT fired for "refusing to be a murder victim", he was fired for the unauthorised carry and use of a firearm in the workplace.

It's actually a good case for changing the laws to allow trained concealed carry employees to carry their firearms at that store.

But by outright lying about the facts, you don't create a dialogue but a distorted argument where both sides (pro gun and anti-gun) just resort to emotional arguments that have no basis in reality such as "store clerk fired for defending himself" and (on the anti-gun side) "Get rid of guns for the kids".

rickjump1

That quote involved one perpetrator who did overcome the victim. He could have very well killed the victim for resisting. You might fight off one perpetrator with a can of spam, but what if there were six? I'm sure "other" countries might encourage you to fight back and even train you with a bat or bear spray, but not in this case. Lots of ifs. The victim here lost his job, but he is alive.

[devildog 0]

JerryBaumchen

I see no need to own a AR-15; but that is just me.

Depends on who you are protecting yourself against. Even if we set aside the government argument (which was the intention of the 2nd amendment), Korea town during the LA Riots absolutely proved that you'll want something bigger than a handgun in certain circumstances. And of course, just for a 2-3 people breaking into your home, its a lot easier to engage them all when you've got an AR-15 ready as opposed to say, a 6 shot revolver.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[rickjump1 0]

"But by outright lying about the facts, you don't create a dialogue but a distorted argument where both sides (pro gun and anti-gun) just resort to emotional arguments that have no basis in reality such as "store clerk fired for defending himself" and (on the anti-gun side) "Get rid of guns for the kids".

I didn't lie about anything. If you read my original post, you would have seen quotation marks around the statement immediately following the source that contributed to my lie?

This is an old story, and it will continue with bus drivers and store clerks/personnel, etc. sacrificing their jobs after they prevent murders or robberies with an unauthorized weapon on the job. That is no lie.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 2,380]

>I didn't lie about anything.

He was not fired for refusing to be a murder victim. That's a lie. (But it sure does provoke an emotional response, which I am sure was your objective.)

It's like pulling at 500 feet, then claiming that you were banned from the DZ for opening your parachute and refusing to become a no-pull fatality. That would also be a lie.

[rickjump1 0]

......and none of your posts are emotional.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rifleman 61]

Personally, I always preferred a Remington 870 for home defence backed up by an H&K P7.

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[rickjump1 0]

davjohns

***" I do want to lessen the arsenal that some people have." Sorry for the miscommunication.
I guess you don't approve of surplus little Davy Crockett tactical nuclear devices being in the hands of civilians. Am I getting warm? I can go with that.

Ummmm....I hate to interrupt another silly argument...but I've searched for where I can get one of these devices and come up empty. Can you provide a a link, please? Christmas is coming, you know.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) You know, they made so many of those little poppers, one or two might have slipped through the paperwork. You might check out one of those gun clubs down in Mississippi. Those guys and girls have everything you could think of. If you find one, I wouldn't give to any kid under the age of 12 for Christmas.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[1888 0]

I'd like to know what you would have done in his situation

Likely shat.

[1888 0]

I had a friend (a retired Marine) who was faced with a similar situation, absent the pepper spray. With a gun in his face he just pulled out ole Mr 45 fired & let the air out of the bad guy. He lost his job, said oh well & got another.