IA - Pizza Delivery Man Shoots Robber in Self Defense - Will Probably Lose Job

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Oh.. the driver can refuse if the area is too dangerous...

Click to expand...

CAN he? I've heard claims that refusal to deliver to certain areasis "racist".

We have a choice between:

Not being able to order take-out if you live in certain communities.

Delivery drivers getting robbed and or murdered to deliver REALLY crappy pizza.

ALL communities being served AND that service NOT being a suicide mission for those providing it.

I know which one I'd choose, but then I'm not a jackass who thinks that we need OSHA for armed robbers but NOT their victims.

Click to expand...

I agree with you....

Can you imagine if everyone refused to deliver to a certain area knownfor robberies???

What is more important...? Businessor employee safety?

Choose wisely... Now get in the car of your fired!!

imported post

Iowa Senator to Stop Buying Pizza Hut if It Fires Delivery Man Who Shot Robber

An Iowa state senator has vowed to stop buying Pizza Hut products if the chain fires a Des Moines delivery man who shot a teen who tried to rob him last week.

Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, told other lawmakers that he supports the delivery man, James William Spiers, according to a report in the Des Moines Register.

"I think what he did was the right thing," Zaun said Tuesday. "If I was in a situation to protect my family, protect myself, to continue being a father, I would’ve done the same thing."

The chain has suspended Spiers pending an investigation, the Register reports.

"We have policy against carrying weapons," Vonnie Walbert, vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut's corporate offices in Dallas told the paper for a March 28 story. "We prohibit employees from carrying guns because we believe that that is the safest for everybody."

But Zaun thinks Spiers, who had a permit to carry the concealed weapon, was well within his rights when he fired the shots March 27, so Zaun is "going to be watching Pizza Hut."

Kenneth Jimmerson, 19, who was hit with three bullets, called 911 for medical help and subsequently was arrested on a charge of first-degree robbery.

(Source)

imported post

"We prohibit employees from carrying guns because we believe that that is the safest for everybody."

Heaven Forbid the delivery guy shot a bad guy during a robbery. This could mean that the bad guy would never order pizza from them!!

So when we say "safest for everybody" we mean EVERYBODY!! A delivery guy can be replaced.. but not a potential customer lost means less money. :lol:

imported post

I don't remember if we were talking about it on here or not, but the pizza guy who shot the would be robber is being supported by an Iowa senator:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344608,00.html



An Iowa state senator has vowed to stop buying Pizza Hut products if the chain fires a Des Moines delivery man who shot a teen who tried to rob him last week.


Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, told other lawmakers that he supports the delivery man, James William Spiers, according to a report in the Des Moines Register.


"I think what he did was the right thing," Zaun said Tuesday. "If I was in a situation to protect my family, protect myself, to continue being a father, I would’ve done the same thing."


The chain has suspended Spiers pending an investigation, the Register reports.


"We have policy against carrying weapons," Vonnie Walbert, vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut's corporate offices in Dallas told the paper for a March 28 story. "We prohibit employees from carrying guns because we believe that that is the safest for everybody."


But Zaun thinks Spiers, who had a permit to carry the concealed weapon, was well within his rights when he fired the shots March 27, so Zaun is "going to be watching Pizza Hut."


Kenneth Jimmerson, 19, who was hit with three bullets, called 911 for medical help and subsequently was arrested on a charge of first-degree robbery.

imported post

I sent this to Pizza Hut via their website feedback form. Everyone should contact them and say something to this effect.

If James Spiers is fired for defending himself I will never eat at Pizza Hut again. I will tell all of my family and friends and co-workers that if they value their right to self defense they will never eat at Pizza Hut again.

Sincerely,
Nathan

imported post

nathan wrote:

I sent this to Pizza Hut via their website feedback form. Everyone should contact them and say something to this effect.

If James Spiers is fired for defending himself I will never eat at Pizza Hut again. I will tell all of my family and friends and co-workers that if they value their right to self defense they will never eat at Pizza Hut again.

Sincerely,
Nathan

Click to expand...

Done, their pizza seriously sucks anyway.

Send them a message saying you will boycott them until such a time as you learn that Spiers was suspended with pay and then reinstated and that their policies to licensed CCW holders has changed. That's what I did.



This law abiding, working father of a 10 yr. old girl could very well have been killed were it not for his disregard of their assinine and anti-second amendment policy.

They made their entire fortune off of America how about standing up for what America was founded on. It's sickeningto say the least that they would expect to send their employees anywhere without the ability to defend themselves, especially when that person is licensed to do so in the state in which they are employed.

People really need to send them a message loud and clear.

James if you ever see this, we are proud of what you did for yourself and your family, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Scumbags like this POS that forced you into a position to have to defend your life deserve everything they get.

imported post

563 wrote:

Howe's co-worker Kimberly Babis said Spiers should not have been armed on the job, no matter what the safety concern. She said most drivers have the right to refuse a delivery if they feel it could pose danger.

"I don't understand why the pizza delivery guy had a gun," she said. "And even if the other guy was trying to rob him, it's a measly 20 bucks. At least that's how much our drivers have on them."

Click to expand...

Someone ought to shove a gun in her face and rob her. She obviously doesn't mind. What a bi***.

On the bright side, he's only losing a minimum wage job that doesn't even require a GED. He can get another job, but he can't get another life. If mymanagers were anything less than supportive of my decision to defend my life, they wouldn't have to fire me.

imported post

I find it somewhat pathetic on the part of the manager / pizza corporation to not be able to look past the pettiness of citing their policy and acknowledge that they might have instead had a dead delivery employee on their hands who would have died on the job.

If one is killed on the job, the company's insurance carrier would very likely have been liable to pay damages to the employee's family or heirs. The company should have sighed in relief that he was able to protect himself and avoid the PR nightmare of having to explain that their policy is to send their minimum wage earners into harm's way to deliver their products.

imported post

In West Virginia, "[w]hen an at will employee has been discharged from his/her employment based upon his/her exercise of self-defense in response to lethal imminent danger, such right of self-defense constitutes a substantial public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine and will sustain a cause of action for wrongful discharge" Syllabus Point 8, Feliciano v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 210 W.Va. 740, 559 S.E.2d 713 (2001) (slip opinions: majority | dissent).

This is a very rare case in which I would disagree with (now Chief) Justice Maynard, who is generally a very good justice, see, e.g., State ex rel. West Virginia Div. of Nat. Resources v. Cline, 200 W.Va. 101, 110, 488 S.E.2d 376, 385 (1997) (Maynard, J., dissenting) (majority upholds constitutionality of statute prohibiting loaded firearms in vehicles) (slip opinions: majority| dissent), whose reelection this year I personally endorse.

imported post

wayneco wrote:

I find it somewhat pathetic on the part of the manager / pizza corporation to not be able to look past the pettiness of citing their policy and acknowledge that they might have instead had a dead delivery employee on their hands who would have died on the job.

If one is killed on the job, the company's insurance carrier would very likely have been liable to pay damages to the employee's family or heirs. The company should have sighed in relief that he was able to protect himself and avoid the PR nightmare of having to explain that their policy is to send their minimum wage earners into harm's way to deliver their products.

Click to expand...

Actually... unless he is robbed in the store and killed... the company insurance probably will not cover his death. Once he leaves the store in his own car.. all bets are off!!

He is paid to deliver food and maybe given gas money if he uses his own car.

So he is willingly and knowingly taking on a task where he knows he could be robbed. He does not have to do this job and must accept the risk.

What kills me is that once he leaves the store with their food.... he is someone banned from protecting himself from harm.

How would this be different from anyone elsedriving from one job site to another intheir own car while armed. Arethey forbidden from having a gun then too? :?Or is it only hen you are delivering food and you are most vulnerable.

imported post

What I have issue with is how in this country it is increasingly understood that corporations have rights and citizens have privileges. For instance, it is a privilege for a citizen to carry a firearm inside of a private establishment yet it is a right for that establishment to prohibit firearms. Last time I read the Constitution, people have rights and corporations have privileges, not the other way around. It should be a federal law that anybody that prohibits firearms on their property is liable for the safety of everyone in that establishment and should anyone be hurt or killed that otherwise would have likely been protected had they been in possession of a firearm, the establishment should be hit with million dollar fines. Or, it should simply be outright illegal for any public establishment to prohibit firearms period.

I am not against corporations or businesses as that is how the American economy functions. I have an issue though about how we give these establishments "rights" that aren't granted and then turn the "rights" of citizens into "privileges."

When you are operating a business, you are serving the public and the American economy. I don't believe that you should be given more rights than an ordinary citizen. Take workplaces that even prohibit firearms on the property meaning you cannot even have a gun in your own car that is parked on the property. They are given this "right" because it is "private property." Any objection is met with "you don't have to work there." While that is true, since the workplace prohibits firearms even in a car that is parked there, they are actually interfering with your 2nd Amendment rights outside of work because you cannot then legally carry a firearm to and from work since you can't have it when you get there. So effectively by prohibiting you from bringing it there, they are prohibiting it while you are not even on the property.

On to the subject of Pizza Hut, what right do they have to tell a person off of their property that they cannot carry a firearm when the State and Federal Constitutions clearly state that the right to bear arms will not be infringed? This workplace is infringing on its employees' Constitutional rights. I don't believe that unreasonable restrictions should be put on corporations but I certainly believe that it is always more acceptable to put a restriction on a business than on a citizen. Likewise, if they can prohibit corporations from discriminating against race and require that accomodate for people with disabilities, they can prohibit them from preventing their employees from protecting themselves.

A free society is a society with soverign individuals. That pretty much means that an individual has the right to do whatever the damn well he pleases as long as he is not bothering anyone or interfering with their freedoms. Likewise, a corporation is not an individual and should not be treated as such.

imported post

protector84 wrote:

Snipped......
A free society is a society with soverign individuals. That pretty much means that an individual has the right to do whatever the damn well he pleases as long as he is not bothering anyone or interfering with their freedoms. Likewise, a corporation is not an individual and should not be treated as such.

Click to expand...

This is a free society and you have the right to do what you damn well please.If you break a law, you will have to answer to that. But you have no rights to do anything you like on property owned by my or my corporation.

Maybe I am anti gun or antiskateboarder. In either case... I do not have to allow it on my property regardless of insurance liability. But that is what it really may come down to. IfI get sued.. I will pay through the nose for insurance if I can even keep my policy. And just because YOU wanted to do somethingon MY property. That really is in my best interests, huh?

A corporation is not an individual but a group of individuals known as the staff and the shareholders. This makes it more powerful that a single individual since so many people have an interest in what the company does.

I am not sure how a corporation would not or should not have any rights as would the individual.Why should the corporation be powerless and have no rights?

If the Pizza Hut Corporation wants to prohibit guns in the store and when you are in the Pizza Hut logo apparel making a delivery.. that is their right. I do not agree with it when they know their drivers are robbed on a daily basis. But they do not want to be sued for the actions of an "expendable" employee.

Thinking in a business way.... it would be better if the employee was robbed for $20.00 and even murdered since both the cash and driver can be easily replaced. If an armed driver accidentally shoots someone who was not robbing them... the payout would be in the millions. This easily makes it justifiable to BAN DRIVERS FROM PACKING A GUN!

It sucks.... but I understand it. Now they will make an example out of this driver in an attempt to discourage others from packing a gun.

imported post

protector84 wrote:

SNIP What I have issue with is how in this country

Click to expand...

The corporation is composed of sovereign individuals.

I don't think a corporation's rights should trump the rights of their customers and employees.

But, I also don't think the employee and customer rights should trump the corporation's. Basically that would be saying you have to subordinate or surrender your rights if you want to go into business.

imported post

The only right in business is that "The customer is always right!"

But the business has the ability to protect itself and do what is in the best interest of the business.

Every business or even a corporation is ultimately owned by an individual. That individual has the same rights as everyone else.

Pizza hut has the right to fire this guy for breaking the rules. He is now a liability and the matter is not over yet. How long before the bad guy's family sues the entity with the deepest pockets???

imported post

Every business or even a corporation is ultimately owned by an individual. That individual has the same rights as everyone else.

Click to expand...

actually, unless I am mistaken ( I did sleep alot in my business ecobomics class in high school) a corporation itself is considered as a individual, in a sense. when you sue a business that is incorporated ( Pizza hut for example) you are not suing the owner of the business,because technically,there is no "owner" only a majority shareholder. the business is actually "owned" by everyone who holds stock in the company, however the business is run by a board of directors, who are either majority shareholders, or who are appointed by majority shareholders. Policies such as this one, that are written on a corporate level have nothing to do with whether a member of the board is pro or anti anything. teh policies are written by lawyers and voted on my teh board. the no gun policy taht most corporations have are put there ,as was said before, due to liability concerns. most boards will merely glance over the policy and vote on them one way or another (usually approving them since they really have no desire to study every aspect of a 10 or 20 page policy). the decision to put thier drivers in harm like this was based solely on a question of "how many ways can we avoid a lawsuit" every employee who is employed by a public corporation is literally nothing more to the corporation than an employee I.D. number, or a statistic.

imported post

You are correct -- the Supreme Court decided in 1886 that a corporation has all the same rights of a person and I believe this is called corporate personhood.

excerpt from: http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.

Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.

The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that the defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.

The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts."In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution."

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

"We prohibit employees from carrying guns because we believe that that is the safest for everybody."

Heaven Forbid the delivery guy shot a bad guy during a robbery. This could mean that the bad guy would never order pizza from them!!

So when we say "safest for everybody" we mean EVERYBODY!! A delivery guy can be replaced.. but not a potential customer lost means less money. :lol:

Click to expand...

Hey LEO229 didn't you say some where else on this forum that you don't allow your employees to carry ?

imported post

I've never known a pizza joint to search an employee's car unless he's done something.

What that has to do with me, I will not say.

imported post

AbNo wrote:

I've never known a pizza joint to search an employee's car unless he's done something.

What that has to do with me, I will not say.

Click to expand...

How would any business have the right to search ANYONE'S car? First off they aren't law enforcment, and second off, that would be illegal search and seizure. I would tell that pizza joint to shove it and walk out on them as soon as I heard the words "no firearms." There's no way in hell I would deliver pizza unarmed.

imported post

WhiteRabbit22 wrote:

How would any business have the right to search ANYONE'S car?

Click to expand...

you'd be surprised. several companies that I have worked for had clauses in the employee handbook regarding searching someones car. one company that I worked for even had it stated in the handbook that if they saw a single bullt in your car that it gave them grounds to search the vehicle for their zero tolerance firearms policy. it said that if the person refused that they would call law enforcement to do it. and god forbid if you had a bullet on your person...