Welcome to the all new Geo Metro Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are features you can't use and images you can't see. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: Join our community! |
| Autozone fires worker who stopped robbery, may have saved life. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 6 2012, 12:20 PM (2,015 Views) | |
| Cobrajet25 | Dec 7 2012, 12:58 AM Post #16 |
![]()
|
This is spot on...mostly. A reasonable robber would not want to shoot anyone, but a reasonable person would not commit armed robbery to begin with. So I can't assume ANYONE who intends to rob a store would not intend, or at least be indifferent to, doing me harm in the process. So I carry a concealed weapon. Fuck my boss. The company doesn't give a damn about their employees lives or safety, it is a liability thing. Same with pizza delivery outfits. If you defend yourself and your coworkers with any kind of force, even your fists, you have exposed them to liability. Companies don't like liability. Common sense might prevail if our country were not so litigious, but company owners would rather face my mother at my funeral than some crackhead's mother in court. It is simply cheaper. At the place I work at, which is a major chain, weapons are kind of a wink-and-nod kind of thing. They seem to recognize that given the nature of the job it may be prudent to carry a weapon of some kind, but for liability reasons they make it against policy. If I have to pop some crackhead that sticks a knife to my throat, I would rather be fired than dead. I think this guy should sue Autozone for being fobidden by policy to exercise the long standing and universally recognized basic right of self defense. |
![]() |
|
| Coche Blanco | Dec 7 2012, 01:02 AM Post #17 |
|
Troll Certified
![]()
|
I have a few points about the story. The robber wasn't going to kill anyone, or he would have shot at the guy with the gun. Also, consider the source, Fox News. I'll have to read up some more on this story before I believe it all. Finally, I can't say I agree with AutoZone here, but I can't say that I disagree. You don't want a bunch of vigilante employees that have a wild wild west shootup every time a store gets robbed. With all of that said, I most likely would have done the same thing. |
![]() |
|
| Horn | Dec 7 2012, 01:08 AM Post #18 |
![]()
|
No lawsuits. Yes this guy was in the right. Getting fired might have been the best thing to happen to this guy. His name is in the paper for defending a company and himself. He lost a crummy job that paid $9/hr. You can find those. He was not forbidden by autozone his right. He chose to work there. He knew the policy. (which I think is bs in this case). By working there he voluntarily gave it away. The way the courts would look at it is there was a policy that he agreed to follow. He broke the policy. He got fired. If he were to sue and win, every big company/corporation in America would have to look at their policy on weapons. I highly doubt he would win. Again, the publicity he gets will help him more than a lawsuit. IMO |
![]() |
|
| Horn | Dec 7 2012, 01:11 AM Post #19 |
![]()
|
Don't you dare talk about the most fair and balanced news source EVER!!! lol I thought the same thing and googled the story and there were many other news outlets that covered it but I didn't read into it. Everything I post on this thread is based on this story being true. (I assume the same with everyone else) |
![]() |
|
| Horn | Dec 7 2012, 01:13 AM Post #20 |
![]()
|
CB, what do you think if an innocent, 3rd party customer gets shot in the shootout? That company is screwed. I completely see it from the companies point of view. I also completely see this guy's point of view. |
![]() |
|
| Cobrajet25 | Dec 7 2012, 01:19 AM Post #21 |
![]()
|
I don't think any company should have the right to make you "check your civil rights at the door" in order to be employed. Yeah, he signed it. But they shouldn't have the right to make him sign it, IMHO. I really can't believe that companies are allowed to have policies like this. It always seemed pretty blatantly unconstitutional to me. Can I be required to surrender any other rights...like my freedom of religion...in order to be employed? Were a company forcing it's employees to surrender any right other than their Second Amendment right, there would be justifiable outrage. The idea that I can be forced to trust my life to some armed nut's intentions in order to get a paycheck strikes me as lunacy. ![]() If another party initiates a violent confrontation, you should be allowed to respond in kind. And pointing a gun at someone, even without trying to divine their intentions, IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE. |
![]() |
|
| Cobrajet25 | Dec 7 2012, 01:21 AM Post #22 |
![]()
|
Jeezus enough with the Fox bashing. It is so cliched and juvenile...it's like a liberal douche secret handshake. This isn't a story MSNBC or CNN would even bother to cover, so thank Fox for informing you of it. Edited by Cobrajet25, Dec 7 2012, 01:23 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Horn | Dec 7 2012, 01:29 AM Post #23 |
![]()
|
Im not saying it is right. That's just the way it is whether you agree with it or not. So now you don't have to follow the rules you originally signed? So that means that all contracts should be voided because you don't agree with it. You don't have freedom of speech in many jobs either. If I work at wal mart and say "fuck wal mart and this chinese shit they sell" then hell yea wal mart can fire me and will. You have every right to make your own business and be your own boss. You can exercise every right you want. You are on there property, you agreed and signed paperwork. Most jobs have you sign an arbitration agreement saying that you will go to arbitration instead of going to court. At first you had the right to a regular trial, but since you agreed to arbitration, you have waived that right. |
![]() |
|
| Horn | Dec 7 2012, 01:32 AM Post #24 |
![]()
|
It's so juvenile then you say "a liberal douche secret handshake" sounds a little juvenile. Probably should practice what you preach |
![]() |
|
| Cobrajet25 | Dec 7 2012, 01:39 AM Post #25 |
![]()
|
You are missing the point. I am saying that requiring you to sign away the basic right to self-defense IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL in and of itself, and were it any other right people would recognize it. Being publicly vulgar, as in your Walmart example, has long been seen as illegal and subject to the law. But that is not what we are talking about in this case. There is nothing vulgar about defending yourself. However, I do recognize your underlying point. I understand that the current interpretation of the law is that an employer can require you to sign away legal rights. But do you think they should be able to? What I am concerned about is the requirement to surrender a basic constitutional right in order to be employed, as this is becoming an increasingly widespread practice. It's about time it stopped. |
![]() |
|
| Cobrajet25 | Dec 7 2012, 01:41 AM Post #26 |
![]()
|
Pointing out the actions of juvenile douches doesn't make you juvenile any more than pointing out idiocy makes you an idiot. Go put on your big-boy pants and keep your news outlet critiques to yourself. **edited for syntax** Edited by Cobrajet25, Dec 7 2012, 01:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Horn | Dec 7 2012, 01:50 AM Post #27 |
![]()
|
Yes they are requiring you to sign the paper, but YOU are the one going there go get the job. Its not like they come to your door and make you sign a paper if you don't work there. You ask them for the job so they have rules. You agree to the rules. You know who writes corporate policies? LAWYERS. They are trying to save corporate's ass. Your rights are taken away at many places. When I go to the court house they say no guns. Right there the govt is taking the right away. If I get on a plane they say no guns and take my right away. Shit cobra, you are arguing with a guy that lives in ILLINOIS.....ILLINFUCKINOIS. I can't carry a gun on me if I want to. Damn state. I hate Chicago. Now I'm fired up about Chicago ruining it for the rest of us. |
![]() |
|
| Horn | Dec 7 2012, 01:52 AM Post #28 |
![]()
|
FYI I watch Fox news just as much as MSNBC and CNN. I meant that using the word douche was juvenile. And yes I use it all the time. I like the way it sounds. Kind of like saying busch (beer). |
![]() |
|
| Cobrajet25 | Dec 7 2012, 02:01 AM Post #29 |
![]()
|
At a courthouse the government is indeed taking a right away...but is providing armed protection and security in return. Different deal. If Autozone had armed security guards like a courthouse does, I'd agree with you. But they don't. Autozone, and most employers, provide NO security or protection against bodily harm for their employees while at the same time systematically depriving them of the right they have to defend themselves against physical violence and possible death. I am no Supreme Court judge, but that ain't right. We both agree that it is all about liability and litigation. But someday somebody is gonna fight this AND WIN. You are right...this is getting really bad in some states. Mostly blue ones, like Illinois and Washington. I am surprised gun control is not worse here in Washington, though they do try every few years to pass really restrictive gun laws. So far they have failed. With regard to Chicago fucking up Illinois, it is the same here in Washington vis-a-vis Seattle. Washington did not make gay marriage and marijuana legal in this state...SEATTLE DID. Businesses used to be able to make it illegal to be black while on their property. What is the difference?? Edited by Cobrajet25, Dec 7 2012, 02:03 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Cobrajet25 | Dec 7 2012, 02:02 AM Post #30 |
![]()
|
It is a cool word!
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Geo Metro Lounge · Next Topic » |


Welcome to the all new Geo Metro Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.





It is a cool word!

1:47 PM Jul 11