TexasCHLforum.com

healthinsp wrote:Any bets on if Domino's fires him for violating company policy?

The article states that although Domino's has a "no weapons" policy, a Domino's spokesman said that since
the shooter was acting as a LEO at the time, he will not be fired.

Any othe driver that wasn't a LEO would probably be fired.

SIA

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:

healthinsp wrote:Any bets on if Domino's fires him for violating company policy?

The article states that although Domino's has a "no weapons" policy, a Domino's spokesman said that since
the shooter was acting as a LEO at the time, he will not be fired.

Any othe driver that wasn't a LEO would probably be fired.

SIA

So, some people have more rights than others. How was he "acting as a LEO at the time"? He wasn't acting any differently than anyone on this forum would have been acting. Somehow because of what he used to do or what he does at his other job he has a greater right to self defense than the rest of your employees? I find that line of thinking disgusting. I have eaten my last domino's pizza!

jmra wrote:

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:

healthinsp wrote:Any bets on if Domino's fires him for violating company policy?

The article states that although Domino's has a "no weapons" policy, a Domino's spokesman said that since
the shooter was acting as a LEO at the time, he will not be fired.

Any othe driver that wasn't a LEO would probably be fired.

SIA

So, some people have more rights than others. How was he "acting as a LEO at the time"? He wasn't acting any differently than anyone on this forum would have been acting. Somehow because of what he used to do or what he does at his other job he has a greater right to self defense than the rest of your employees? I find that line of thinking disgusting. I have eaten my last domino's pizza!

The business can allow whoever they want and in this case they allow a leo to carry. In TX a leo is a leo 24/7 with full peace officer authority. He doesn't loose the authority off the clock. The leo is backed by whatever agency commissioned him so when it comes to liability there is somebody to sue = meaning it's all about liability. I imagine if CHL holders held huge umbrella policies employers might allow more carry but they don't want to be sued. Blame dominoes.

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:

healthinsp wrote:Any bets on if Domino's fires him for violating company policy?

The article states that although Domino's has a "no weapons" policy, a Domino's spokesman said that since
the shooter was acting as a LEO at the time, he will not be fired.

Any othe driver that wasn't a LEO would probably be fired.

SIA

So, some people have more rights than others. How was he "acting as a LEO at the time"? He wasn't acting any differently than anyone on this forum would have been acting. Somehow because of what he used to do or what he does at his other job he has a greater right to self defense than the rest of your employees? I find that line of thinking disgusting. I have eaten my last domino's pizza!

The business can allow whoever they want and in this case they allow a leo to carry. In TX a leo is a leo 24/7 with full peace officer authority. He doesn't loose the authority off the clock. The leo is backed by whatever agency commissioned him so when it comes to liability there is somebody to sue = meaning it's all about liability. I imagine if CHL holders held huge umbrella policies employers might allow more carry but they don't want to be sued. Blame dominoes.

I believe that is exactly what I did, "I have eaten my last Domino's pizza".

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:

healthinsp wrote:Any bets on if Domino's fires him for violating company policy?

The article states that although Domino's has a "no weapons" policy, a Domino's spokesman said that since
the shooter was acting as a LEO at the time, he will not be fired.

Any othe driver that wasn't a LEO would probably be fired.

SIA

So, some people have more rights than others. How was he "acting as a LEO at the time"? He wasn't acting any differently than anyone on this forum would have been acting. Somehow because of what he used to do or what he does at his other job he has a greater right to self defense than the rest of your employees? I find that line of thinking disgusting. I have eaten my last domino's pizza!

The business can allow whoever they want and in this case they allow a leo to carry. In TX a leo is a leo 24/7 with full peace officer authority. He doesn't loose the authority off the clock. The leo is backed by whatever agency commissioned him so when it comes to liability there is somebody to sue = meaning it's all about liability. I imagine if CHL holders held huge umbrella policies employers might allow more carry but they don't want to be sued. Blame dominoes.

I believe that is exactly what I did, "I have eaten my last Domino's pizza".

Yup - hit them where it hurts $$$$$$$ I've written a lot of robbery reports over the years with pizza drivers getting robbed.

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:

healthinsp wrote:Any bets on if Domino's fires him for violating company policy?

The article states that although Domino's has a "no weapons" policy, a Domino's spokesman said that since
the shooter was acting as a LEO at the time, he will not be fired.

Any othe driver that wasn't a LEO would probably be fired.

SIA

So, some people have more rights than others. How was he "acting as a LEO at the time"? He wasn't acting any differently than anyone on this forum would have been acting. Somehow because of what he used to do or what he does at his other job he has a greater right to self defense than the rest of your employees? I find that line of thinking disgusting. I have eaten my last domino's pizza!

The business can allow whoever they want and in this case they allow a leo to carry. In TX a leo is a leo 24/7 with full peace officer authority. He doesn't loose the authority off the clock. The leo is backed by whatever agency commissioned him so when it comes to liability there is somebody to sue = meaning it's all about liability. I imagine if CHL holders held huge umbrella policies employers might allow more carry but they don't want to be sued. Blame dominoes.

I believe that is exactly what I did, "I have eaten my last Domino's pizza".

Yup - hit them where it hurts $$$$$$$ I've written a lot of robbery reports over the years with pizza drivers getting robbed.

The companies and their no gun policies have put a huge target on the drivers back. It simply isn't right.

jmra wrote: The companies and their no gun policies have put a huge target on the drivers back. It simply isn't right.

We're going to arm employees that make $8/hr? Yea, no corporate liability there... Thank our legal system first, big corporations second.

cb1000rider wrote:

jmra wrote: The companies and their no gun policies have put a huge target on the drivers back. It simply isn't right.

We're going to arm employees that make $8/hr? Yea, no corporate liability there... Thank our legal system first, big corporations second.

exactly why a commissioned leo was allowed to carry. There is a check book backing him up in the name off HCSO

When the interests of a company in protecting itself from liability conflicts with the safety of entry level employees, companies will almost always act in the interest of the company.

The cold calculus is that the impact of a worker's death on their workers' compensation costs is far less than the impact of a liability suit arising from an employee's use of a gun to defend himself.

Excaliber wrote:When the interests of a company in protecting itself from liability conflicts with the safety of entry level employees, companies will almost always act in the interest of the company.

The cold calculus is that the impact of a worker's death on their workers' compensation costs is far less than the impact of a liability suit arising from an employee's use of a gun to defend himself.

Whether anyone likes it or not there is a price on human life and companies play this game all the time. There is a goal on injuries and fatalities and even though the spoken goal is zero, the realistic goal is not zero but positive numbers depending on the company. Companies actually know and acceppt that there is risk to their employees but profits are a higher priority.

Anygunanywhere

Excaliber wrote:When the interests of a company in protecting itself from liability conflicts with the safety of entry level employees, companies will almost always act in the interest of the company.

The cold calculus is that the impact of a worker's death on their workers' compensation costs is far less than the impact of a liability suit arising from an employee's use of a gun to defend himself.

Have an employee wrongfully shoot an innocent bystander with an errant shot.

Clearly the company is liable.

I am personally aware of 4 wrongful death judgments in the last year that were north of $40 million.

I do not blame companies, as they are acting rationally and properly to safeguard shareholder's interests. Let me say that again, companies are acting rationally and properly given today's legal environment.

I blame the unholy partnership between the Democratic Party and the Plaintiff lawyers. I remember sitting in a legal seminar last October where one of the presentations was by a plaintiff attorney discussing how they will achieve the first $100 million wrongful death payout.

If people want corporations to change, then the legal climate must be changed first. Fighting such change, of course, is the largest priority of the Plaintiff bar, which has also been the single largest donor source for the Democratic Party for decades.

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Blame dominoes.

I believe that is exactly what I did, "I have eaten my last Domino's pizza".

I didn't like their policy long before they made the exception for the people more equal than others.