This is a placeholder for now because I have not had ads on this blog for years. In case I ever start up again, this will be the policy in effect:
The FTC has some fool nonsense rules about ads on blogs or some such and presumes authority over the First Amendment to compel the unfunded mandate that we who earn ad revenues make some kind of disclosure so you don't think we're getting paid to say nice things about people or God knows what, meaning they must think you're stupid, too. I have had a few ads on this site in the past and may do so again if I think it's worth a try. Combined, I probably couldn't buy a box of good cigars each year, let alone a bottle of George T. Stagg, and that is somehow supposed to compromise my morality to force me to say nice things about products and services I don't mean simply in exchange for filthy lucre. If you believe that, leave now--you're not smart enough to be here. Bottom line, aside from welcoming a sponsor, I will do no posts related to their products or services, or reviews of what they offer.
About "The Only Ones"
The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they're involved in gun-related incidents.
Comment House Rules
Keep them on topic. No spam. No threats against anyone except me. Do not feed trolls--I'll take out the trash. Try to keep it clean. I'm the final arbiter. If you don't like the rules, start your own damn blog.
Link Policy
WarOnGuns reciprocates links with liberty-oriented sites promoting the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable individuals. If you have linked to me and don't see your site below, it's probably just because I haven't noticed it yet. Shoot me an email via the "Contact Form" (see above in this sidebar) if you want to fix that.
As a general rule I remove links for blogs that have been inactive for over one year.
I wonder if he can find a lawyer to take an "attempted homicide" or "conspiracy to commit murder" charge against his former employers? After all, he was in direct danger, especially after one of the robbers told the other to kill him. Yet his employers would have preferred he die. If that is not intentionally endangering someone I don't know what is. Sounds to me like a valid case. I wish I knew a lawyer licensed in Florida.
Thank you for firing Eric Henderson for possibly saving his life. You have proven that you would rather have a dead clerk just to prove that company policy trumps self defense. I will never again set foot in a Circle K and will be passing the word along to all of my family and friends.
The reason for such policies is simple: an employer is not civilly liable if an armed robber kills an employee, but can be held civilly liable if an employee injures the robber. Thus the business is protecting itself by having an "allow them to kill you, but do not resist" policy.
Employees are easier to replace than the millions of dollars that would be lost in lawsuits by injured criminals and their ambulance chasing attorneys.
This is one of the ways that our legal system discourages self defense. This is also why I have no respect for "no guns" policies, and why I disagree with those who think that I should obey such policies.
Better to be fired for resisting and overcoming the armed robbers than be fired for not ducking fast enough once the trigger was pulled or be fired for "provoking" the robbers to shoot you because you did not hand them enough money fast enough. Good customer service for all!
Circle K can not let this guy set an example for other employees to follow. Resistance is futile for your continued employment but may prolong your continued existence or continued good health. Decisions, decisions...
Circle K is doing the CYA maneuver, minimizing their costs to maximize their profits. Circle K employees are advised to do the same. Is that job really worth your life? Do you realize how cheaply replaceable you really are to Circle K management?
I think that Circle K should advertise more their friendly policy towards those who would rob their stores at gunpoint. Take the sign that Circle K management posts in their back areas warning employees on their policy, place the sign so that it is clearly visible to customers, vendors and "others", and watch the fun!
How much is deliberately maintaining a "hostile, unsafe workplace" worth?
Convenience store clerks must be a dime a dozen in Pensacola. Circle K had rather have to hire somebody to sweep up a dead clerk than to have him defend himself. [W3]
6 comments:
I wonder if he can find a lawyer to take an "attempted homicide" or "conspiracy to commit murder" charge against his former employers?
After all, he was in direct danger, especially after one of the robbers told the other to kill him. Yet his employers would have preferred he die. If that is not intentionally endangering someone I don't know what is.
Sounds to me like a valid case. I wish I knew a lawyer licensed in Florida.
My feedback.
This is what I sent to Circle K.
Thank you for firing Eric Henderson for possibly saving his life. You have proven that you would rather have a dead clerk just to prove that company policy trumps self defense. I will never again set foot in a Circle K and will be passing the word along to all of my family and friends.
I wish Eric good luck in finding another job.
The reason for such policies is simple: an employer is not civilly liable if an armed robber kills an employee, but can be held civilly liable if an employee injures the robber. Thus the business is protecting itself by having an "allow them to kill you, but do not resist" policy.
Employees are easier to replace than the millions of dollars that would be lost in lawsuits by injured criminals and their ambulance chasing attorneys.
This is one of the ways that our legal system discourages self defense. This is also why I have no respect for "no guns" policies, and why I disagree with those who think that I should obey such policies.
Better to be fired for resisting and overcoming the armed robbers than be fired for not ducking fast enough once the trigger was pulled or be fired for "provoking" the robbers to shoot you because you did not hand them enough money fast enough. Good customer service for all!
Circle K can not let this guy set an example for other employees to follow. Resistance is futile for your continued employment but may prolong your continued existence or continued good health. Decisions, decisions...
Circle K is doing the CYA maneuver, minimizing their costs to maximize their profits.
Circle K employees are advised to do the same. Is that job really worth your life? Do you realize how cheaply replaceable you really are to Circle K management?
I think that Circle K should advertise more their friendly policy towards those who would rob their stores at gunpoint. Take the sign that Circle K management posts in their back areas warning employees on their policy, place the sign so that it is clearly visible to customers, vendors and "others", and watch the fun!
How much is deliberately maintaining a "hostile, unsafe workplace" worth?
Convenience store clerks must be a dime a dozen in Pensacola. Circle K had rather have to hire somebody to sweep up a dead clerk than to have him defend himself.
[W3]
Post a Comment