Libertarians be upset! Pizza Hut Delivery Driver fired for defending himself!

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by motivez

Why would the company be more liable if they allowed people who were qualified (ie: security guards) to carry weapons and one went crazy than if they said sorry, no one is allowed to carry a gun on our property?

If no one has a gun, yeah, no one can be shot, but just because the company sets a no-gun policy doesn't mean someone can't bring one and shoot everyone.

Let's set up this scenario, then:

You have 100 delivery drivers for your company (maybe you're DHL or UPS or whatever), and a no-gun policy. One of your drivers carries his gun anyway. Are you liable if he shoots someone? Yes. Is it likely to happen? No--maybe 1% likely to happen in his career.

Now, in the same company, you have 100 drivers but allow all 100 to bring their guns to work. All 100 are licensed and qualified, including the one guy who brought his gun when you told him not to. Are you not more likely to face liability for a gun violence incident if you have 100 weapon-carrying drivers as opposed to one?

I think the answer is obvious.

[motivez]

Since the gun would only be used in self defense, it would be on the driver, not the company in question

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

So allowing employees to carry guns is a smart policy? Better than just standard training? Honestly, nothing that gets stolen from you in a robbery isn't being given right back to you by the company, and do you really think Pizza Hut's profit margins are going to be affected by having a couple medium pepperoni pizzas and a box of breadsticks stolen?

I don't want my employees out there trying to be heroes. If someone wants to rob my driver of his wallet, cell phone, and pizzas, then fine, so be it. I'll obviously give him back everything which was stolen and a little bonus cash to boot. What I don't want is a PR nightmare where my employee starts shooting people on the job, whether justified or otherwise.

There are gangs in America who initiate members through random killings, delivery drivers are good targets for this. People are also killed during robberies in America. There is no guarantee you can walk away with your life for complying.

[thewise1]

I think this is an old story, if not, then it's a repeat of the same thing.

While generally I think that a company should be able to set whatever stupid policies they want, I don't think, for example, that they should be able to set a policy where they fire their employees for speaking their mind outside of work, as that would infringe on their right to free speech. The same applies to their right to self defense.

We can't sign a contract that makes us a slave, for instance. It's just not valid. So I'm not sure that a company should be able to remove your right to defend yourself.

But, I'm sure people will debate it anyway, and rightfully so. It's not going to matter either way, though, because almost every company has an anti weapons policy anymore.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

So allowing employees to carry guns is a smart policy? Better than just standard training? Honestly, nothing that gets stolen from you in a robbery isn't being given right back to you by the company, and do you really think Pizza Hut's profit margins are going to be affected by having a couple medium pepperoni pizzas and a box of breadsticks stolen?

I don't want my employees out there trying to be heroes. If someone wants to rob my driver of his wallet, cell phone, and pizzas, then fine, so be it. I'll obviously give him back everything which was stolen and a little bonus cash to boot. What I don't want is a PR nightmare where my employee starts shooting people on the job, whether justified or otherwise.

There are situations where you can hand it over and walk away and there are situations where the criminal doesn't want to leave witnesses.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by motivez

I understand why a pizza delivery person would want to be armed, especially if they're going into bad neighborhoods at night.. getting out of the car and going up to strangers doors at all hours of the night is certainly not the safest job out there

So, while I don't really think it's a good policy, I don't see why libertarians would be upset, they usually believe business can put in place whatever rules and regulations for its employees that it wants to, worker be damned.

You really need to worry about the hard core criminals in Iowa? I mean, most of the candidates try to visit every area they can in Iowa for the caucuses and almost all of them have no SS protection, and many don't have any real "security" yet I've never seen a candidate mugged

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Thats why people carry guns to protect themselves

Much like people who have been raped look positively on it

People have hard times with killing another person, in the line of duty, in war, or in defense. He ONCE AGAIN is making baseless claims that aren't grounded in reality. ONCE AGAIN.

Why I suspect he enjoyed SHOOTING them:
!!) HE DIDN'T KILL ANYONE, HE ONLY SHOT HIM (READ THE POST BEFORE YOU WHIP OUT YOUR "JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS" MAP)
1) He was so quick to draw his gun in a situation the article makes no reference to his life being in SERIOUS danger (I talk of true north philly danger, as someone who has had a gun pulled on me in the city and has shot a gun several times at a range)
2) He's a 38 y/o male pizza driver, when someone tries to control a situation and you gain the upper hand back, I'm pretty sure there are natural endorphines at work
3) Worst reason: anecdotal evidence...every older white male I've heard talk about real shooting of "criminals" has been with extreme pride and enjoymanet of the "killing that SOB" even if they had almost nothing...former friend from texas was so thrilled he shot a guy dead who was going through his car...but again this is even better because he didn't actually kill him
4) The only thing the NRA is able to "quote" from the guy is that his life was in danger...nothing that seemed to be relief that he hadn't killed the person, only forced them to flee (isn't that the ultimate gun defense?)
5) there are also, "extreme sport" endorphines, and certainly when someone supposedly "has a gun to [your] head" causing a struggle and then whipping out your own gun is a pretty extreme situation

I was going to respond to your other points but I don't think you have any besides your misreading of my post?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by hsmith

I am not upset about it.

I choose not to eat at Pizza Hut because of this policy against their workers. I think there is a big difference of forbidding workers from carrying IN THE BUILDING and using the weapon there compared to carrying WHILE THEY DELIVER to defend themselves on the road.

The saying in the concealed handgun community is "concealed means concealed" when carrying (Obviously not where it is illegal). I would have done the same thing if I were him. He took the risk and lost his job because of it. I am sure he is much more happy to be alive and looking for a job than to be dead.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a man planned for homicide detectives involved by shooting a pizza guy at place he was known to reside THAT WAS RECORDED ON PIZZA HUTS COMPUTER...talk about the easiest walk to the electric chair...

They say he has a record, so he probably knows Iowa detectives aren't going to go around with a massive investigation if he just take some pizza guys wallet and then stays away from his girls place for awhile

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by motivez

Since the gun would only be used in self defense, it would be on the driver, not the company in question

That's a rather high view of people...you are implying they will only use it in fully justifiable self defense issues

I am sure if EVERYONE carried, you'd have some nervous people drawing their guns because they "sensed" danger...if I'm pizza hut

1) I don't want my customers worried about people with guns coming to visit them
2) I don't want people making horrible wages, but find enough money for a gun, to be judging life and death issue when visiting apartment complexes (or homes for that matter)

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Why I suspect he enjoyed SHOOTING them:
!!) HE DIDN'T KILL ANYONE, HE ONLY SHOT HIM (READ THE POST BEFORE YOU WHIP OUT YOUR "JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS" MAP)
1) He was so quick to draw his gun in a situation the article makes no reference to his life being in SERIOUS danger (I talk of true north philly danger, as someone who has had a gun pulled on me in the city and has shot a gun several times at a range)

Fine. There is still trama involved. Yes, everyone knows you lived in the ghettos of philly, ran around with a rough crowd and lived the life of danger. We all know you held a gun once.

We really care about your anecdotes.

2) He's a 38 y/o male pizza driver, when someone tries to control a situation and you gain the upper hand back, I'm pretty sure there are natural endorphines at work

And?

3) Worst reason: anecdotal evidence...every older white male I've heard talk about real shooting of "criminals" has been with extreme pride and enjoymanet of the "killing that SOB" even if they had almost nothing...former friend from texas was so thrilled he shot a guy dead who was going through his car...but again this is even better because he didn't actually kill him

You are right. Anecdotal.

4) The only thing the NRA is able to "quote" from the guy is that his life was in danger...nothing that seemed to be relief that he hadn't killed the person, only forced them to flee (isn't that the ultimate gun defense?)

Don't quite see the point? His life was in danger and he stopped the threat. Thats the point of self defense

5) there are also, "extreme sport" endorphines, and certainly when someone supposedly "has a gun to [your] head" causing a struggle and then whipping out your own gun is a pretty extreme situation

Extreme sports have nothing to do with fight or flight situations.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Why I suspect he enjoyed SHOOTING them:
!!) HE DIDN'T KILL ANYONE, HE ONLY SHOT HIM (READ THE POST BEFORE YOU WHIP OUT YOUR "JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS" MAP)
1) He was so quick to draw his gun in a situation the article makes no reference to his life being in SERIOUS danger (I talk of true north philly danger, as someone who has had a gun pulled on me in the city and has shot a gun several times at a range)
2) He's a 38 y/o male pizza driver, when someone tries to control a situation and you gain the upper hand back, I'm pretty sure there are natural endorphines at work
3) Worst reason: anecdotal evidence...every older white male I've heard talk about real shooting of "criminals" has been with extreme pride and enjoymanet of the "killing that SOB" even if they had almost nothing...former friend from texas was so thrilled he shot a guy dead who was going through his car...but again this is even better because he didn't actually kill him
4) The only thing the NRA is able to "quote" from the guy is that his life was in danger...nothing that seemed to be relief that he hadn't killed the person, only forced them to flee (isn't that the ultimate gun defense?)
5) there are also, "extreme sport" endorphines, and certainly when someone supposedly "has a gun to [your] head" causing a struggle and then whipping out your own gun is a pretty extreme situation

I was going to respond to your other points but I don't think you have any besides your misreading of my post?

The only person jumping to conclusions is you.
Here is video of him discussing the robbery. Spiers had given him everything he asked for. But then he came back for a second encounter and put his pistol to Spiers's head and started to threaten him belligerently.

He wanted everything and I gave him everything. I did have a second encounter with him and that's when he drew his, you know he pointed his gun back at my head and he, he and he was just yelling at me. He was very belligerent. He was like accusing me of following him or something. Cause that was one of the commands after he robbed me. He said don't even think about following me basically. Like I said I had my hands up, and I was just like you know almost pleading with him and then I just lashed out. I couldn't stand that gun being on me and pointed at my head any longer. I just lashed out and knocked the gun out of the direction, and then there was a struggle.

Pink slip delivered to 'Pizza Man' | DesMoinesRegister.com | The Des Moines Register

After watching him describe the event I have trouble believing this was the highlight of his life. In fact, he has requested counseling to help him cope with what he did and what happened. He said Pizza Hut is willing to pay for his counseling due to this event. That's all he wants.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

That's a rather high view of people...you are implying they will only use it in fully justifiable self defense issues

I am sure if EVERYONE carried, you'd have some nervous people drawing their guns because they "sensed" danger...if I'm pizza hut

If they don't, they go to jail. I think that is a pretty good impetus on using it only on self defense issues. This silly claim was used when states switched to shall issue - people predicted the streets would be flowing in blood because people would "solve issues with guns instead of words" and golly, once again liberals turned out to be liars. Those with permits commit the least crime.

1) I don't want my customers worried about people with guns coming to visit them

Why should they be worried? What fear do they have of law abiding people? Criminals don't quite ask if they can come in your house.

2) I don't want people making horrible wages, but find enough money for a gun, to be judging life and death issue when visiting apartment complexes (or homes for that matter)

How extremely elitist. I guess only the highly educated who are extremely rich that can afford body guards should be afforded personal protection

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a man planned for homicide detectives involved by shooting a pizza guy at place he was known to reside THAT WAS RECORDED ON PIZZA HUTS COMPUTER...talk about the easiest walk to the electric chair...

They say he has a record, so he probably knows Iowa detectives aren't going to go around with a massive investigation if he just take some pizza guys wallet and then stays away from his girls place for awhile

Would you like to pick the winning lottery numbers for me?

You don't know every scenario. If everyone knew when they would get robbed or murdered then there wouldn't be any robberies or murders.

If he was being attacked he responded to what he thought the threat was. End of story. Lost his job but isn't in jail, seems fine by me.

[hsmith]

This isn't really a "libertarian" argument. At all. I would like it to be.

In the confines of our government, it becomes "does he have a right to life" and can pizza hut contract that right away. Does Pizza hut have the jurisdiction and RIGHT to remove that right of life and defense from a person? Do they have the right to do so for a mere $7.50 hr?

You can't sign away liability when you enter a theme park because you can't sign away those rights. Why should a corporation (which "some" in this thread will be quick to point out isn't an individual and doesn't have individual rights) have the right to deny you your natural rights?

[JaJae]

His firing is between Pizza Hut and himself. He is ok with it. He says Pizza Hut did right by him. I don't think it really should be taken much further than that. He knew they had a policy and he understands they have to stick to it. They've given him severance pay and they've provided him with a counselor.

He's satisfied with that resolution. Pizza is satisfied with the resolution. Beyond that I don't think anything else matters.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by JaJae

His firing is between Pizza Hut and himself. He is ok with it. He says Pizza Hut did right by him. I don't think it really should be taken much further than that. He knew they had a policy and he understands they have to stick to it. They've given him severance pay and they've provided him with a counselor.

He's satisfied with that resolution. Pizza is satisfied with the resolution. Beyond that I don't think anything else matters.

He knew the risk and knew he would be fired if they found out. They did because he had to act on it.

I see nothing wrong with the resolution either.

[jhcarrell]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

If Pizza Hut doesn't want it's delivery drivers carrying guns to deliver it's pizza that's thier right... and your right as a potential employee to choose not to work there if you don't like thier HR policies.

Agreed. As messed up as it may seem for somebody to lose their job for defending themselves, if you violate an employer's policies it is their prerogative as to whether or not to allow you to remain an employee. There has been no injustice done here ... a private contract between employer and employee is not a political issue.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by hsmith

This isn't really a "libertarian" argument. At all. I would like it to be.

In the confines of our government, it becomes "does he have a right to life" and can pizza hut contract that right away. Does Pizza hut have the jurisdiction and RIGHT to remove that right of life and defense from a person? Do they have the right to do so for a mere $7.50 hr?

You can't sign away liability when you enter a theme park because you can't sign away those rights. Why should a corporation (which "some" in this thread will be quick to point out isn't an individual and doesn't have individual rights) have the right to deny you your natural rights?

It was his decision to seek employment from a company with this policy.. I thought the modern libertarian thought I see so often touted ar