Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

AT&T employee shot by disgruntled customer

Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by Atroxus, May 28, 2010.

  1. Atroxus

    Atroxus Marysville, WA Member

    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    10
    http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/utica_man_79_had_a_grudge_agai.html

    Apparently some guy walked into an AT&T store planning to kill 6 people. Luckily there was an off-duty police officer there, so he only managed to critically innjure one employee. This story strikes close to home for me because I work for AT&T. I am really hoping that if the employee survives that he sues the crap out of AT&T for it's "zero-tolerance" weapons policy. It drives me nuts that my employer can deny me the right to carry at work, but is not required to ensure that armed people can't get into company property. If it had not been for an off-duty police officer there would very likely be several people dead because AT&T doesn't allow employees to protect themselves at work.:(
     
  2. flinch444

    flinch444 N. Idaho New Member

    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    1
    Im right there with you.
    I work for a furniture manufacturing company with a zero tollerance policy. Their response to an active terrorist/gunman senerio is for the management to run around the plant with air horns and herd everyone (about 300 people) into the front lunchroom, putting everyone in one place. That way the gunman can get everyone instead of just a few.
    I just tell them, "hold your breath and see how long it takes me to get there"

    In all reality, the company isnt going to save you, and very doubtfull they would be held liable if they dont.
    We are all on our own, its up to us to save ourselves. Laws and company policies are last things to think about in a life or death senerio. Survive it first, then worry about the little things.
     
  3. Dyjital

    Dyjital Albany, Ore Flavorite Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    4,917
    Likes Received:
    5,873
    What's sad it was a disgruntled customer.
     
  4. 4Freedom

    4Freedom Boise, Idaho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,124
    Likes Received:
    817
    Why was this psychopath allowed to walk the streets after brandishing a handgun and threatening store employees???? All they did was revoke his pistol permit?! He should have been locked up and undergone psychiatric evaluation right away.

    I know its hard to tell when a psychotic person will strike, but I would say half of these shootings may be prevented if we had stricter measures against those who commit crimes. People like him are also a threat to our rights to keep and bear arms. The gun grabbers use stories like these as fodder for their authoritarian agenda.
     
  5. THC101

    THC101 Pierce County Member

    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    7
    Precisely
     
  6. the4thshake

    the4thshake Portland Active Member

    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    189
    Did anyone catch the part about his pistol permit being revoked for a previous incident? They aren't refering to a concealed carry permit. They have to have a permit just to own one. Apparently their stupid gun laws didn't keep the crazy old man from coming back and shooting up the place. Who would have thought that criminals don't follow laws? What would they be saying if it wasn't an off duty officer who shot and killed the madman? What if it was an otherwise law abiding citizen who carried to protect himself and others despite the unconstitutional laws prohibiting him from having a firearm available to defend his life?
     
  7. chemist

    chemist Beaverton OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Likes Received:
    644
    Okay, this may seem way inappropriate, but anybody remember Fun With Dick and Jane from the Seventies? They pull a stickup at the phone company and all the customers waiting in line to pay their bills cheer. So for over thirty years hating the phone company has been cliché.
     
  8. CounterOfBeans

    CounterOfBeans northwest Active Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    117
    To my understanding, as an employee of a business who is on the clock at work, you are in the legal capacity of an agent of that corporate entity; an extension of that entity. The enjoyment of rights, a la, 2nd amendment constitutional rights, were only intended and are still only intended for people who are in their capacity as an actual We The People citizen, public member, etc. A citizen is the only kind of person who has legal standing to demand and invoke 2nd amendment rights.

    As unfair as it might seem at first glance by being employed at the company that set this gunman off on an isolated personal vendetta, demanding 2nd amendment rights protection as an employee of a corporate entity is to suggest that one isolated event should be used as grounds to put corporations and their commercial agents on the same legal par as citizens under the Constitution. I'm sure AT&T, Wal-Mart, GM, Exxon, etc. would be all ears about letting the genie out of that bottle.
     
  9. unionguy

    unionguy Portland Active Member

    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    58
    Corporations already have the same rights as people in most cases...except they are sort of super-people because they don't die, you can't put them in jail, etc. when they break the law!
     
  10. biggie24420

    biggie24420 Beaverton Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    638
    Any business that takes away the right for licensed individuals to CC.... they live in la la land. If they really think a bad guy will not go to a GUN FREE ZONE armed to kill.....someone is on drugs. If you wanna be unarmed and be a moving target.....that is your thing.....as for me? I think I will use my tool to protect me. These people who make dumb laws need jesus in their lives......
     
  11. Atroxus

    Atroxus Marysville, WA Member

    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    10
    I agree with most of what you said...except I am pretty sure that religion doesn't cure stupid. ;)
     
  12. Dyjital

    Dyjital Albany, Ore Flavorite Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    4,917
    Likes Received:
    5,873
    Now I know this is mildly off topic but still semi-related to the subject of carrying and places of work/business.

    My wife was watching the season finale of "Grey's Anatomy" where some gunman came into the hospital and started shooting. Killed numerous people and basically went unchecked. I casually pointed out that this was the reason we needed more armed citizens.

    Sadly that's what will continue to happen as places post no gun signs and have no gun rules for employment. Unless everyone has their own panic room, because you cannot put everyone into one place and 'hope' that the gunman doesn't find them. As you take away the guns from the private citizens you empower the criminals and those who wish to do harm. Plain and simple. A fact that we are all aware of on here.
     
  13. chemist

    chemist Beaverton OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Likes Received:
    644
    None of those corporate honchos thinks for one minute that no-gun policies protect anybody in the workplace. Their first, last, and only concern is limiting company liability, and their teams of lawyers all agree than banning CC is the best way to do it. It might make sense in a civil courtroom, but not out in the real world.

    If you want to check how much faith the Board of Directors has in the effectiveness of their policies, try to casually stroll into THEIR office area uninvited, and see how quickly their guards converge on you.

    I remember getting a 'corporate dictum' from the last major company I worked for, saying that we were no longer allowed to have on company property ANYTHING hazardous, including but not limited to flammables, chemicals, and sharps. Well I worked in a laboratory, so I asked my fearless leaders, what was I supposed to do without any tools, alcohol wipes, or even an Exacto blade???

    The corporate office's first response was to try to terminate me, but somebody explained to them that the company needed to develop new products to stay in business, and that was that. They never withdrew their policy, but they never said another word to me about it.

    The US has 80% of the world's lawyers.
     
  14. CEF1959

    CEF1959 Willamette Valley, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    14
    If you think it's lawyers making the decisions about the security of corporate personnel, you haven't spent much time with senior corporate execs. They demand security measures and command their lawyers to give it to them.
     
  15. bugeye

    bugeye Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    12
    I keep texting stop to that 4 numeral number and then they even send me back a text to tell me that I've opted out of getting the annoying advice and advertising texts from AT&T but a few weeks later they do it all over again, any advice other than to go armed to my nearest sales office?

    I often thought that a law that states that torturing millions of people through intentional means should be enforced as if at least a few of them were killed (this would put microsoft's net worth in minus numbers). After all I think we are born without an ability to deal with lots of frustration and anger but when you exceed that limit you keel over.
     
  16. Atroxus

    Atroxus Marysville, WA Member

    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best bet is to call in from a landline or a cellphone other than the one you are having the issue on. The number to use if you call from a landline is 800-331-0500.
     
  17. talntid

    talntid spokane Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am curious whether:

    a. The employee now thinks "Wow, Maybe I should carry a gun!"
    b. The employee now thinks "Wow, guns should be banned!"
     
  18. longcolt

    longcolt Zephyrhills, FL Active Member

    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    110
     
  19. CounterOfBeans

    CounterOfBeans northwest Active Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    117
    Consider this dissenting opinion language by Justice Rehnquist in the 1978 case of Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765:
    "This Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a "person" entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396 (1886). Likewise, it soon became accepted that the property of a corporation was protected under the Due Process Clause of that same Amendment. See, e. g., Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 522 (1898). Nevertheless, we concluded soon thereafter that the liberty protected by that Amendment "is the liberty of natural, not artificial persons." Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 203 U.S. 243, 255 (1906)."

    "However, the General Court [435 U.S. 765, 823] of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Congress of the United States, and the legislatures of 30 other States of this Republic have considered the matter, and have concluded that restrictions upon the political activity of business corporations are both politically desirable and constitutionally permissible. The judgment of such a broad consensus of governmental bodies expressed over a period of many decades is entitled to considerable deference from this Court. I think it quite probable that their judgment may properly be reconciled with our controlling precedents"

    "The appellants herein either were created by the Commonwealth or were admitted into the Commonwealth only for the limited purposes described in their charters and regulated by [435 U.S. 765, 824] state law. 2 Since it cannot be disputed that the mere creation of a corporation does not invest it with all the liberties enjoyed by natural persons, United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698 -701 (1944) (corporations do not enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination), our inquiry must seek to determine which constitutional protections are "incidental to its very existence." Dartmouth College, supra, at 636."

    "Early in our history, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall described the status of a corporation in the eyes of federal law:

    'A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created.' Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819)."


    As Rehnquist mentions above, the doctrine of human rights = corporate rights was first introduced in the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. That was accomplished by a mere court reporter, J C Bancroft Davis. As far as a conflict of interest, Davis was a former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company. (See: ^ "Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor of the State of New York, and of the Tabulations and Deductions from the Reports of the Railroad Corporations for the Year Ending September 30, 1867". The Argus Company, Albany, NY. 1868. pp. 336. Retrieved 2009-10-04.)

    Davis took the liberty of drafting his headnote commentaries of the case in a way that expanded the decision beyond what the justices were willing to declare in the official decision of the court themselves, which said nothing of corporate personhood. See http://athenwood.com/uphistory.shtml. This initial doctrine was overturned in 1906 and corporate non-personhood seems to have stood as the doctrine of the court for 68 years as Rehnquist above explains in his 1978 Boston v. Bellotti decision dissent.

    So the history of the supposed, well-settled understanding of corporate personhood doesn't seem to be so rock solid. In this Boston v. Bellotti case, Rehnquist cites Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs(1906) as having clearly overturned the corporate personhood doctrine, while in the majority opinion, justice (Powell) flat out ignores Rehnquist's citation which clearly demonstrates the 68 years of precedence for corporate non-personhood. It's as if Powell is saying "OK, I've rounded up enough justices who support me in ushering in a re-birth of corporate personhood, I don't care to comment about that inconvenient little fact."

    Corporate personhood is currently on the fence again in SCOTUS with a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Justice Sotomayor seems to be putting herself out there on the side of corporate non-personhood. For such a crucial issue of identity related rights, these people are all over the place and their oscillations only serve to make their declarations less and less credible.

    Considering the act that got this corporate personhood ball rolling was the Court's institutional acceptance of a court reporter's expansive summary as its voice for the law of the land, We The People have some serious soul searching to do about the credibility/intentions of the people who ostensibly serve us. Meanwhile, corporations currently gleefully enjoy their status as co-beneficiaries of the Constitution and use that status to leverage their considerable resources against our rightful position at the top of the heap under the Constitution.
     
  20. bugeye

    bugeye Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    12
    OK, I take it your not technical, the failure has nothing to do with my phone, but you know the engineers at Samsung who came up with that POS should be forced to eat my homemade sushi for punishment. Unlike the phone, I think my sushi will improve with practice and excluding luttefisk.