Note to News 14 Carolina: If you morons want to see vigilantes in action, rent a copy of "The Oxbow Incident" or "Death Wish." This man protected himself and, according to your own televised report, called the police and waited on the scene for their arrival.
A couple more germane factoids come out in other reports of this incident.
From WCNC:
The federal government includes food delivery drivers in the 5th most dangerous job category.From The Charlotte Observer:
[T]wo suspects approached the delivery man with a gun and demanded money...Note to flack Damien: I don't know who you think needs your crappy jobs so badly they'd die following your stupid policy of denial. Truth is, more Americans die--by an overwhelming margin--from diseases associated with eating the greasy fodder you and yours foist on the public under the guise of food, than die from gun-related injuries. Fire this guy and it will be made known to a lot of gun owners.
It's against policy for Domino's Pizza employees to be armed on the job, said company spokesman Damien Carper. However, disciplinary action will not be considered in the matter until after the police finish the investigation, he said.
[Via MacEntyre]
ALL of the pizza delivery outfits...and all other delivery outfits including UPS, FedEx, etc, have very firm, no-wiggle-room rules against employees possessing firearms on the job. Frequently, incidents which require an employee to defend themselves in the field wind up with said employee being terminated the next day with no room for debate (or gaining unemployment benefits) for "breaking company rules".
ReplyDeleteThe customer that attempted to rob the pizza guy is refered to as, drum roll please, "the victom".
ReplyDeleteHow did that happen? Are our prisons filled with victoms?
Are our prisons filled with victoms?[sic]
ReplyDeleteOf course they are...just ask the convicts...they'll tell you what victims they are.
Now just a damn minute here. You know I agree with your stance 99% of the time because we both know and understand liberty and its requirements, but when you start vilifying pizza you have crossed the line into hysterical extremism.
ReplyDeleteI will pray you come to your senses. Attacking pizza, my God! You've gone 'round the bend.
The customer that attempted to rob the pizza guy is refered to as, drum roll please, "the victom".
ReplyDeleteYou beat me to it, Anon. I think the correct term would have been "the loser."
This is one of the two reasons I don't eat chain-store pizza.
ReplyDeleteI make my own. If I'm in a tearing hurry, I'll eat a DiGiorno, adding more mozzarella and anchovies myself. It may cost a little more, but I'm worth it.
I suddenly find myself suspicious of your American cultural credentials, David. I hope you're not going to go off on beer.
I hope you're not going to go off on beer.
ReplyDeleteHe wouldn't dare.
Mine was a critique of the crap the chains put out--I've yet to see one not puddled with grease--and the simple observation that such fare is associated with more health problems and deaths than guns. But I'm not a hypocrite--I like bad foods, Prilosec willing, and guns. The Dominoes flack is the guy calling for one without the other.
ReplyDeleteThat said, and noting all foods in moderation, except steak, I prefer making my own pizza (using fresh baked French or Italian bread), and since I need to defend my Americanism, I may as well have to defend my masculinity when I admit I love to putter around in the kitchen and create and serve meals to family and friends. When I was single, I considered it one of the more important skills in a bachelor's toolkit, and you'd be amazed at how helpful it can be in smoothing down some of the lumps that come with married life.
Plus I rule in an apron.
And no worries on the beer, except for the cheap mass produced stuff in cans, or anything hawked as "light". My fridge is generally stocked with Beck's Dark, but I also like Abido Turbo Dog, technically an ale...
Not to mention a good cabernet, 18-year-old single malt, and nice, well-rolled maduros (La Gloria Cubana, if anyone wants to send me a box)...
David,
ReplyDeleteI knew you were a man of good taste and the La Gloria Cubana maduros comment proved it.
I'm not sure where in Ohio you are, but if you are in the southwest corner, Straus Tobacconist in Florence tends to have a good selection. Oh, and they periodically have friday evening get togethers. I even won a box of La Gloria Cubana maduros, sadly not the Serie R, but still good.
Gregg, for now it's an occasional treat, but the Serie R is what I'll regularly smoke when we win the lotto. I keep telling the wife all she's gotta do is pick six lousy numbers and she can't even do that right.
ReplyDeleteThe US legal system effectively REQUIRES a rational businessman to forbid his employees to defend themselves. If an employee is injured or killed on the job the liability of the employer is limited to the amounts specified in workmen's compensation laws. PERIOD. No lawsuits or liability beyond that, and most worker's comp liabilities are insured.
ReplyDeleteBUT - if an employee defends himself, it is virtually guaranteed that the employer will be sued by the attacker claiming "victim" status, or the attacker's survivors in case the attacker doesn't make it. It's not clear the employer's insurance would cover even the cost of defense, since the plaintiff would allege an intentional tort on the part of the employee, which frequently is excluded from insurance coverages.
SO - as a rational businessman you can put your employees at risk and protect your business from ruinous litigation, or let them defend themselves and risk losing your business to any thug who attacks one of your people (and his lawyer, of course.) A public company MUST decide to put their employees at risk or the shareholders would sue the executives for corporate waste.
If wrangler is correct, why are these businesses not swamped under ruinous litigation when their policies result in the death of one of their employees, or one of their customers? To the best of my knowledge, knife and gunshot wounds do not fall under workers comp. In fact I would expect there to be an exclusionary clause, the specifically excludes damages suffered through violence of any sort.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, I also do not understand why an attacker is not laughed out of court when they sue their intended victim.