• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Hero Fired.....

G22

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
74
Location
Michigan, USA
Reporter: "So they were pointing a gun in your face, did you sense despite the fact that they were pointing a gun, that you were threatened?"

You just can't make this stuff up...Where do they find these "journalists"?
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Reporter: "So they were pointing a gun in your face, did you sense despite the fact that they were pointing a gun, that you were threatened?"

You just can't make this stuff up...Where do they find these "journalists"?

Actually, the journalist was spot on in the whole interview, and did a great job exposing the stupidity of the company for firing an employee who defended his own life. I think the point of the question you quoted was for the journalist to elicit from the employee that there was more than one factor giving the employee reason to fear for his life. Journalists, like lawyers, sometimes ask questions they already know the answer to, in order to hammer something home.

This was an intelligent journalist, with a great piece that was favorable toward self-defense and ridiculing of the company's (Circle K) stupid anti self-defense policy.
 

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
Actually, the journalist was spot on in the whole interview, and did a great job exposing the stupidity of the company for firing an employee who defended his own life. I think the point of the question you quoted was for the journalist to elicit from the employee that there was more than one factor giving the employee reason to fear for his life. Journalists, like lawyers, sometimes ask questions they already know the answer to, in order to hammer something home.

This was an intelligent journalist, with a great piece that was favorable toward self-defense and ridiculing of the company's (Circle K) stupid anti self-defense policy.

Agreed, unfortunately it is about liabillity, it costs less for the employee to get killed than for the employee to get the company sued after defending him/herself. He did well and should be commended for his presence of mind and restraint, not fired.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
What liability?

^all caps auto censored^
A start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

The liability angle is bunk. If I'm killed while on the job because I couldn't have a firearm, my heirs will sue the employer AND the shooter. And they will pay out something. So it costs them (Employer or Insurance company) money.

If I defend myself with the blessing of my employer and I kill a bad guy the bad guys family will sue the employer and me (I will have some shaky legal protection from suit if shooting is justified.) the employer will not have protection and will pay out money.

In both cases the Employer gets sued and more than likely settles.

In one case the bad guys know the employees are defenseless and in the other they may not be. Which place does the bad guy target? Which one will have the less in-the-long-run liability due to being pro-active?
 

Super Trucker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
263
Location
Wayne County, MI.
A start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

The liability angle is bunk. If I'm killed while on the job because I couldn't have a firearm, my heirs will sue the employer AND the shooter. And they will pay out something. So it costs them (Employer or Insurance company) money.

If I defend myself with the blessing of my employer and I kill a bad guy the bad guys family will sue the employer and me (I will have some shaky legal protection from suit if shooting is justified.) the employer will not have protection and will pay out money.

In both cases the Employer gets sued and more than likely settles.

In one case the bad guys know the employees are defenseless and in the other they may not be. Which place does the bad guy target? Which one will have the less in-the-long-run liability due to being pro-active?

It was explained to me that you did not have to work anyplace that didn't allow you to defend yourself, so if you end up dead it was your own fault for voluntarily taking that job.
 
Last edited:

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
Why would ANY judge award money to a criminal or the family of one, from either the SD citizen, or an employer?

Some of Castle Doctrine laws were written to ensure a criminal couldn't sue a person for getting hurt in your home. I have heard of the criminal who fell through a families sky light and won millions, no I can't cite it. Its something I heard a long time ago.

And I don't think its the issue of being sued in the first place its more of a damage control measure. My company has armed and unarmed accounts the armed accounts not only cost more for the better trained security officer but the insurance premiums that go along with it. Being sued is a given, its just how much the insurance company/client has to pay out before the insurance stops and the personal checks start.

Do I agree with it mostly no, but I do understand it.
 
Top