pizza hut worker shot

[jghelton]

wow once again im baffled .....what is going on in this world 2ND ammendment baby

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

That's Taco Bell - where all of the extra value meals should be #2....


I only wish I could claim that line... forget the name of the comedian that beat me to it, but I almost drove off the road laughing...

 

[Ol' Wiley]

Pizza Hut, KFC, and Taco Bell.

YUM! is a Chinese corporation, by the way.

It's actually based across the river... in Louisville, KY.
It has international subsidiaries... but who doesn't nowadays?

 

[JBusch8899]

Employee killed by criminal: $100,000 Workers compensation settlement to the survivors.

Criminal wounded by employee carrying his firearm: $1,000,000 civil action against Corporation. Settlement of $250,000 to the criminal. Hero employee saving life of self and coworkers terminated from his position for violation of company policy.

 

[JBusch8899]

wow once again im baffled .....what is going on in this world [STRIKE]2ND ammendment[/STRIKE] common sense baby

fify

 

[96firephoenix]

damn, I love taco bell.

 

[Joe Williams]

Thank goodness they obeyed Pizza Hut's policy of no firearms, put in place for "employee safety."

When an employer chooses to disarm their workers, and their workers are a victim of violent crime, I personally think the employer is equally at fault with the agressor.

 

[Joe Williams]

If the robber that got shot sues, I'm afraid that one will cost PH more. I can't see any court awarding damages above medical/death benefits to the Guy that did what he was told. I don't like it, but there's nothing that the company could have done to stop a dirtbag bent on doing harm (sounds kinda like the reason many of us oppose restrictions on civilian carry) but they could be seen as mildly negligent in not detecting or enforcing violations of their no weapons policy. What a world we live in.

I think Pizza Hut is grossly negligent for disarming it's employees. If the employee is a LTCH holder, I think they should sue for being disarmed, and Pizza Hut failing to live up to their subsequent assumption of the responsibility to provide protection.

 

[POC]

I'd love to forego YUM, but they own every restaurant in town!

I've said it over and over and over and OVER again. Someone will come into the hospital I work at and kill at least one of us in the ER. We aren't allowed to carry. We all just tell our families to sue the hospital after it happens....
I AM working on a presentation to Administration about the safety issues and the NEED to allow us to arm and defend ourselves.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

It's actually based across the river... in Louisville, KY.
It has international subsidiaries... but who doesn't nowadays?

Hm. Thanks for the correction.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Yep - based in Louisville... they are THE big sponsor of the Kentucky Derby. I've always wondered what happened to the horses that came in last... (grin)


Sad part is - it's a calculated risk - and they may well be on the right _mathematical_ side of it.

 

[rambone]

If its possible for suing anyone for anything, then the employee should sue Pizza Hut for negligent policies. Then settle for a policy change and a modest financial compensation. Maybe other companies would follow suit.

 

[Bubba]

I think Pizza Hut is grossly negligent for disarming it's employees. If the employee is a LTCH holder, I think they should sue for being disarmed, and Pizza Hut failing to live up to their subsequent assumption of the responsibility to provide protection.

I agree morally that a company that diaarms licensed carriers is negligent and ought to feel ashamed of itself. I have a hard time conceiving of a court that would agree. A company is no more responsible for choices made by a robber than they are for the path of a tornado and, until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that merely possessing a firearm means a person will not be injured in a robbery, there is more than enough gray area for the company to argue in favor of their gun ban.

 

[GIJEW]

I thought that in Indiana a criminal (or his next of kin) CAN'T sue for being injured/killed while commiting a crime? Unfortunately, PH's staff of corporate lawyers can bankrupt the employee who's got medical bills and a mimimum wage job, so he won't be the one to make their stupid policy costly for them.

If the robber that got shot sues, I'm afraid that one will cost PH more. I can't see any court awarding damages above medical/death benefits to the Guy that did what he was told. I don't like it, but there's nothing that the company could have done to stop a dirtbag bent on doing harm (sounds kinda like the reason many of us oppose restrictions on civilian carry) but they could be seen as mildly negligent in not detecting or enforcing violations of their no weapons policy. What a world we live in.

 

[SSGSAD]

A worker at an Indy Pizza hut was shot in a robbery last night..
Michigan road store.

He was shot in the back ...

 

[DHolder]

In the long run, the poor guy just trying to pay his bills, will end up with the short straw. This ain't Never Never Land and thats the way the cookie crumbles. (really sad emoticon goes here)

 

[Joe Williams]

I agree morally that a company that diaarms licensed carriers is negligent and ought to feel ashamed of itself. I have a hard time conceiving of a court that would agree. A company is no more responsible for choices made by a robber than they are for the path of a tornado and, until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that merely possessing a firearm means a person will not be injured in a robbery, there is more than enough gray area for the company to argue in favor of their gun ban.

A company is not responsible for the choices of a criminal. They ARE, however, responsible for their choice to disarm their employees and render them helpless by policy, and for their failure to subsequently provide the protection the employee would otherwise have been able to provide for themselves.