- Messages
- 10,374
- Reactions
- 29,745
I'll make sure I back them from now on.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/1...ployee-who-shot-armed-robber-in-self-defense/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/1...ployee-who-shot-armed-robber-in-self-defense/
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
<- Why there aren't any school shootings in Israel!
Teacher with long gun slung over her shoulder!!!
I'm guessing they got wind of a possible boycott of their stores and decided the backlash was too much!! They're not changing their policy either so it's just in this case.
Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
NRA Golden Eagle member
NRA Recruiter
Defender of Freedom Award
Washington Arms Collector Member
Vancouver Rifle & Pistol Club member
"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"
They have the policy in place for liability reasons and so that they can fire an employee who does something idiotic or negligent with a gun."Company policy prohibits employees from utilizing firearms in the performance of their duties."
What does it say about utilizing firearms to save their lives?
And "reassigned to another position" is probably just a nice way of saying they're giving her a crap job and waiting for her to quit.
They have the policy in place for liability reasons and so that they can fire an employee who does something idiotic or negligent with a gun.
How they choose to discipline an employee for violating that policy can be determined on a case-by-case basis. In other words....if its a legitimate act of self defense they can choose to overlook it, which is what they appear to be doing in this case.
According to the article, they reassigned her to an inside job and are providing her with counseling. It is entirely possible that she no longer has any desire to deliver pizzas anymore. I wouldn't blame her. It sounds to me like the company is treating her fairly, sort of like Dutch Brothers did a few years back down in Eugene when one of their baristas shot an armed robber. He didn't get fired either, even though he violated company policy by having a gun.
If I were an employer whose business, home and other assets could be forfeited in a lawsuit, I would also have a "no guns" policy for employees in my workplace. How vigorously I chose to enforce that policy, as well as the consequences for breaking it, would depend entirely upon the situation and the employee.It's nice to see companies actually recognizing that while you can have a "no guns, no exceptions" policy they really don't make sense. They're likely to be sued by one side of the situation or the other no matter how they handle it but at least some are willing to recognize that every situation is not the same.
We don't know, because the story doesn't say. It could have entered his face and exited without penetrating his brain box, or it could have been stopped by his thick skull. It's happened before, with a 9mm at close range.The only problem I see in this entire story is that she scored a face hit on the scumbag and he is still breathing. Sounds like she had a pocket .22 or a .380, which means the taxpayers get to foot the bill for his medical care, court-appointed attorney, and cost of future incarceration. A 38+P hollowpoint would have punched his ticket for good and left the taxpayers with little more than a $400 bill for direct cremation.