Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Another easy target for the bad guys

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-20...r_tab01_layout

    Yet another easy hit for the bad guys since most buysinesses will not allow their employees to be armed with anything more than a phone that can dial 911.

    I like carrying my revolver but things like this make me want to start carrying my hi-capacity Browning more. Grrrr.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    HardChrome wrote:
    http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-20...r_tab01_layout

    Yet another easy hit for the bad guys since most buysinesses will not allow their employees to be armed with anything more than a phone that can dial 911.

    I like carrying my revolver but things like this make me want to start carrying my hi-capacity Browning more. Grrrr.

    As a business owner myself.... I would not trust my employees to be armed and shoot criminals.They aretoo inexperienced and lack the training to make those decisions.

    The legal ramifications could bankrupt my company if I were to be sued. We all know that thefamily of a dead bad guy can sue even if he was committing a crime. The law needs to change on this!!

    I am in business to make money.... Armed employees can scare away customers. Accidental discharges can scare away morecustomers and get you sued.

    If my business is likely to be robbed.. I will hire a guard.

    If the employee wants to be armed... He can find employment elsewhere.


    EDIT: I am all for the people being armed... But when something you do can hurt me financially... I have to draw the line.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    I don't blame you. Good points. Way back when, I was working at a local camera store. I packed every night. Nobody knew it. I had one customer almost come over the counter at me one night. Weapon not needed. He never even had a clue. But I would have been prepared, not to mention having to walk out to my car every night after closing, often escorting any female employees who were leaving late as well.

    Of course the problem with a guard is that most are not armed and those that are will surely be taken out of commission first. But it will probably deter the crime a little to those who want one less in their body count should they make it before a judge.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    HardChrome wrote:
    I don't blame you. Good points. Way back when, I was working at a local camera store. I packed every night. Nobody knew it. I had one customer almost come over the counter at me one night. Weapon not needed. He never even had a clue. But I would have been prepared, not to mention having to walk out to my car every night after closing, often escorting any female employees who were leaving late as well.

    Of course the problem with a guard is that most are not armed and those that are will surely be taken out of commission first. But it will probably deter the crime a little to those who want one less in their body count should they make it before a judge.
    My wife will often close and lock the money in the safe. I stop by at the end of my shift and pick it up to take home. being armed and daylight... rather safe for me.

    Armed guards only... What is the point in having an unarmed guard unless he is watching a building.

    Stores often have them stand at the entry door. Makes them visible when criminals enter. Snatch 'em up when they try to walk out with store goods. But makes it easy for criminals to take down right away. I like the idea of having them elsewhere.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Leo229,

    I find your comments not relating to the situation

    One comment assumes the owner would have his employees armed to defend the business. That could results in lawsuits but not related to the original poster's message

    The second is if a business doesn't disallow their employees from carrying. Letting their employee ccw on premise for their self defense is a seperate issue

    Why should their be able to live depend on the quality of the guard you hired. BTW:If you hired someone not up to the task, the employees families would be able to sue you.

    Also you seem to think an employee CCWing would scare your customers. If it's really concealed, they wouldn't know.




    LEO 229 wrote:
    HardChrome wrote:
    http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-20...r_tab01_layout

    Yet another easy hit for the bad guys since most buysinesses will not allow their employees to be armed with anything more than a phone that can dial 911.

    I like carrying my revolver but things like this make me want to start carrying my hi-capacity Browning more. Grrrr.

    As a business owner myself.... I would not trust my employees to be armed and shoot criminals.They aretoo inexperienced and lack the training to make those decisions.

    The legal ramifications could bankrupt my company if I were to be sued. We all know that thefamily of a dead bad guy can sue even if he was committing a crime. The law needs to change on this!!

    I am in business to make money.... Armed employees can scare away customers. Accidental discharges can scare away morecustomers and get you sued.

    If my business is likely to be robbed.. I will hire a guard.

    If the employee wants to be armed... He can find employment elsewhere.


    EDIT: I am all for the people being armed... But when something you do can hurt me financially... I have to draw the line.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    I doubt that he was referring to concealed carry. No one would be frightened by that for sure. But as we know, some would inherently pull out their weapons to show to others for example which would invite trouble of all sorts. No owner could be guarateed that his armed employees would keep their hands off their weapons while they are working. I'd be willing to be that accidental discharges would be rampant. But chances are, the only ones who would carry would be the likes of us who are probably pretty well versed at carrying and using and not likely to play show and tell.


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    HardChrome wrote:
    I doubt that he was referring to concealed carry. No one would be frightened by that for sure. But as we know, some would inherently pull out their weapons to show to others for example which would invite trouble of all sorts. No owner could be guarateed that his armed employees would keep their hands off their weapons while they are working. I'd be willing to be that accidental discharges would be rampant. But chances are, the only ones who would carry would be the likes of us who are probably pretty well versed at carrying and using and not likely to play show and tell.
    Exactly... If they CC and I did not know.. that is different than if I knew and allowed it. Therefore... I, as a business owner.. having full knowledge that they were armed on duty, can be held fully responsible for any act they take with their gun. Many business owners do not want this held over their heads.

    To allow an employee to be openly armed my turn some customers away. This is evident with citizens when they see others who OC.

    ------

    Yankee... Let me ask one one question...... Do YOU own a business?

    If you answer "No" then I do not expect you to fully understand since you have nothing to lose and see things only as a self defense necessity.

    I see it as... an employeefighting off an attacker. The employeepulls out a gun and kills him when he could have ran away. Now the store is liable and after the attorney fees and the successful law suit.... the business goes under.

    I know it is heartless..... but I think most businesses see it like this....

    If an employee is injured or killed... there are many more people out there to fill his shoes. Better to lose an employee than to lose the entirebusiness.

    So my employees are taught.... do not fight for the store.... give the bad guy what he wants!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    I agree. The legal system is not fair. It's a matter of which attorney wins. If a thug get's shot by someone at Circuit City or a Hardee's for example, don't you think the family is going to see a gold mine in litigation? It doesn't matter if the shooting was justified. It's probably going to be cheaper for the business to settle a civil suit out of court for a sizeable amount than to see it in court.

    It's no longer about right or wrong but about how big the pockets are of those even loosely conected. Forget about the person who pulled the trigger. It's no longer about that. Wrongful death cuts a very wide path through the courts. Probably not difficult to prove some responsibility in order to win including insifficient training of the person carrying the weapon or lack of a sign at the door indicating that thugs may become part of the flooring.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    LEO you may know more about this than I do. What does the law say about someone sueing someone else and losing? Does the one sued have a right to collect reasonable legal fees? And by that I mean from the one filing the suit "and" the lawyer who should have known better. After all the lawyer stood to gain from winning and is equally guilty of bringing these suits that "are cheaper to settle than fight".

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    HardChrome wrote:
    I agree. The legal system is not fair. It's a matter of which attorney wins. If a thug get's shot by someone at Circuit City or a Hardee's for example, don't you think the family is going to see a gold mine in litigation? It doesn't matter if the shooting was justified. It's probably going to be cheaper for the business to settle a civil suit out of court for a sizeable amount than to see it in court.

    It's no longer about right or wrong but about how big the pockets are of those even loosely conected. Forget about the person who pulled the trigger. It's no longer about that. Wrongful death cuts a very wide path through the courts. Probably not difficult to prove some responsibility in order to win including insifficient training of the person carrying the weapon or lack of a sign at the door indicating that thugs may become part of the flooring.
    Ya... Classic case of how the system has been exploited.

    Just like the Judge who sued the dry cleaners over his lost pants. They tried to settle for more than $10,000 but he did not bite. Judge lost his case but the dry cleaner lawyer fees totaled.... $100,000!!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    LEO you may know more about this than I do. What does the law say about someone sueing someone else and losing? Does the one sued have a right to collect reasonable legal fees? And by that I mean from the one filing the suit "and" the lawyer who should have known better. After all the lawyer stood to gain from winning and is equally guilty of bringing these suits that "are cheaper to settle than fight".
    I thought that it was that way... at least.. it should be!!

    I cannot say for sure. Not my area of expertise.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    LEO...from a business owner perspective, I agree with your premise "don't fight for the store, give them what they want"...but would you allow your employees to carry to defend themselves only?



    If, after they give the BG what they want (money, merchandise, etc.), what if the BG doesn't want to leave witnesses and decides to take their life?



    I'm curious how you would address from this perspective. Would your opinion change if/when VA were to get a castle doctrine-type law?



    v/r

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, ,
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    So my employees are taught.... do not fight for the store.... give the bad guy what he wants!!
    Sadly, there are too many criminals these days that want more than just money. Being cooperative doesn't help much if it turns out that the crook wanted you to look more scared than you did, and kills you for not meeting his expectations. To be honest, I highly doubt that 47 year old unarmed woman did anything other than try to give the thugs what they wanted.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    SIGguy229 wrote:
    LEO...from a business owner perspective, I agree with your premise "don't fight for the store, give them what they want"...but would you allow your employees to carry to defend themselves only?


    If, after they give the BG what they want (money, merchandise, etc.), what if the BG doesn't want to leave witnesses and decides to take their life?


    I'm curious how you would address from this perspective. Would your opinion change if/when VA were to get a castle doctrine-type law?

    v/r
    When your being sued.. The lawyer will question the fact that the employee is on the clock and packing a gun.

    Even if he was protecting his self against a person "a customer" who enters the store.... he is still connected to the store itself. If he walked up and punched a old lady in the face because he did not like her son... it falls back on the store.

    Now if my business cannot be held liable for my employee shooting someone while on the clock... I may be more open to the idea of them packing a heater.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post





    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    I assume you mean liable in a civil sense as opposed to a criminal sense. I think civil cases are a lot easier to win which is wht they are so prevalent. Again, it's all about the money rather than right or wrong.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    I seem to remember a conversation on here aboutbusinesses taking out life insurance policies on their employees, and then not letting them carry to protect themselves (I think Pizza Hut was the business).

    From an EMPLOYEE's point of view, I'm not going to ask about a gun policy and, if I happen to see or hear about one, I may just pretend I didn't. I would rather save my own life and risk getting fired than the other way around.

    Off the employee thing, and back to the OP, it's really too bad that there weren't any armed patrons there to take those guys out. Lord knows I'd have my hand on my gun if I saw two guys wearing all black with bandana's on their faces walk into the resturant I'm eating at. All of you VA carriers should spend more time in Newport News lol.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    That's what bugs me the most about people asking why I carry. The surely won't be asking anymore if something like this happens and one of us is around. If I only carry when I think I might need it, what are the chances that I'm going to have it on me?

    When I'm out with my daughter, taking her to the beach, I don't think, "I need to stop by Wal-Mart so I better go home first and get my gun. But after Wal-mart I need to go to the library so I had better go home and put it away since I'll never need it there."

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    When I'm out with my daughter, taking her to the beach, I don't think, "I need to stop by Wal-Mart so I better go home first and get my gun. But after Wal-mart I need to go to the library so I had better go home and put it away since I'll never need it there."
    Exactly. In fact, there are a lot of times I go out and realize that carrying is going to be a nuisance, but in the end I do what I have to, remembering that the one time I don't have it is the time I'll need it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    I got a lesson on exactly that about a year ago. I decided I didn't need to carry at all on a short errand from home. I went to the drug store just as a robbery was taking place. I had no idea even after I had left the store until I saw two store employees come running out and a guy jump out of a taxi that was parked at the store. They chased him around the rear of the store. Being unarmed, I was a little afraid to go see what was going on but I felt I needed to offer assistance if possible.

    I drove around the rear and saw the employees struggling with the suspect, I mean thug. They had him in control for the most part as I called 911 and relayed the events to the dispatcher until the police arrived. I just wish I had had my pistol with me. I would/might have had it out and pointed in a safe direction just in case but in any event I would have felt safer had I had it with me.

    The guy was caught. He had been riding in this one taxi (unknown to the driver), stopping in Walgreens stores and robbing them (claiming to have a gun) and then riding in the taxi to the next one. What a kook!

  21. #21
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    Yeah civil liability.

    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    halifax, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 is right. but the one thing that needs to be changed is when a person commits a crime he loses all rights except basic human rights and the right to a speedy trial. and his family shall lose there rights in sueing anyone or a business. he is committing the crime and as he wouldknow the law excepts the responsability.

    i was brought up knowing that if i broke the law i would have to pay the consequencesfor my actions.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    robertnmjr wrote:
    LEO 229 is right. but the one thing that needs to be changed is when a person commits a crime he loses all rights except basic human rights and the right to a speedy trial. and his family shall lose there rights in sueing anyone or a business. he is committing the crime and as he wouldknow the law excepts the responsability.

    i was brought up knowing that if i broke the law i would have to pay the consequencesfor my actions.
    Correct...

    It is like being a victim all over again when you get sued for the bad guy stubbing his toe while burglarizing your house.

    There is just something wrong with that. But what is sad is that lawyers are more than willing to take the case. They should be the first line defense and deny taking on that kind of case.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    French Foreign Legion
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    In the state of Virginia, as in about 16 others at this time we have the" Castle Doctrine" in place. That prevents you from being sued by someone or there family that is killed or injured while commiting a crime:celebrate

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •