| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 09:19 am: | 
|
>>> You cannot allow the policy in a dangerous situation to be broken or others will do the same until somebody gets killed.
Your premise is false, that doing nothing will prevent anyone getting killed. Evidence shows otherwise. Many Jews in Europe thought that doing as the bad men told them would spare them great harm. People must be free to defend themselves as they see fit when confronted by deadly threat. Period. Let the chips fall where they may after the dust settles. Advertising free reign for thugs is just asinine. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 09:22 am: |
|
In my view it is also a violation of our constitutionally protected right to life. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 10:10 am: |
|
Locally we had what has become known as the Browns Chicken Massacre. Seven innocent people slaughtered for a simple robbery. You don't fight back to protect cash or property. You fight back to protect life. I can understand a business stating that they have no policy to fight back. I don't understand a policy of being a sheep lead to slaughter though.
The idea of someone shooting the wrong person while defending themselves from a criminal simply isn't statistically sound. Sure it can happen, and has happened. If that is your reasoning for not allowing someone to carry a weapon for defense though, please examine the fact that on a per incident basis, the police have a much worse record of shooting innocent people than private citizens. Please note that this is on a per incident basis. Simply stated, a shot fired by a cop is far more likely to kill an innocent person than a shot fired by a private citizen. That is real world data. Who do you really want "protecting" you in a robbery? |
Just_ziptab
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 10:32 am: |
|
If you're going to be a sheep,expect to be sheared once in a while.
It's all "risk management" anymore,no matter the right or wrong about it...and that's exactly why I walked from my job(three months ago) on the very minute of my 20th anniversary of employment at the business I worked.  |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 10:34 am: |
|
This has always bugged me also. Companies that want to post a "no CCW permit carrying" policy while on site for their employees should be liable for events where a CCW could have defended themselves or others. Especially if their entire planning on the matter is "where and when do we put up the no carry signs" as opposed to coming up with a comprehensive plan to address potential workplace violence. "We will call law enforcement" isn't a comprehensive plan... a 5:00 to 15:00 minute response plan is 4:50 to 14:50 minutes too long.
It would be fair to have company policies defining what the companies preferred response should be (compliance). And even declare that any actions apart from that are the employees responsibility. And employees should follow those policies all the way up to the point where they or another is at credible risk of life and limb. At that point, an individuals God given rights trump company policy. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 11:04 am: |
|
The problem is that the corporate lawyers will tell them that by not having a policy, they are open to being sued for doing "nothing".
They will also explain that a policy of fighting back will lead to a huge lawsuit when that fails to work as planned, so they will never adopt a mandatory fight back policy. Of course that one makes perfect sense. You have to asses the situation individually.
They will also explain that a policy of "allowing" employees to fight back, can be construed as silently endorsing a fight back policy, exposing them to risk of lawsuit.
They will also explain that a policy of "do not" fight back is the one that protects them from lawsuits. When it all goes bad, the fault is clearly put upon the bad guy, and the business is clear of liability.
The problem with this sort of decision making is that the suits making the decision will NOT be the ones in the line of fire at 2:00 AM when some thug decides to rob the place. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 11:26 am: |
|
That way of thinking is in alignment with the reality created by the last 200+ years of jurisprudence. Companies don't want to hire swarms of lawyers, they have to. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 11:27 am: |
|
Sifo, that kind of thing is the trend, not the exception today.
You can blame Public schools and the rise of moral relativism, the deliberate mocking of religions ( other than the psuedo-marxist faith of the Progressives ), the racist policies that concentrate poverty and dependence in the inner cities ( although you can argue that inner cities have always been the home to violent street crime..... since before Babylon ) or the full moon & global warming.
No matter what you blame, the facts are that since the Progressive movement this century, accelerated by the hippie era and the influx of Soviet sponsored anti-civilization movements, the crime rate has gone up except where it has dropped in response to increases in freedom from the CCW movement.
Fact is, you are more likely to be killed by a stray bullet from a cop than a civilian. You are more likely to be killed by a robber than to live through the robbery, in some ( but, perhaps not yet all ) places.
Your odds of being murdered in daily life, outside a store clerk on late shift, are not that horrible. Pretty good, in fact. Murderous types are actually very rare in society, and most people don't have daily contact with them.
The guy or gal who IS a convenience store clerk has substantially worse odds, worse than police. Most, even in an age of hyperbole and outright lies about crime statistics are never going to get robbed.
I never was robbed in 5+ years on the graveyard shift, while a buddy was robbed 3 times in 3 months, and was only saved from death one time by the security firm actually asking on the store speakers if he was ok while they watched the robbery. This freaked the robber enough to not shoot him and leave. His location was far worse ( city ) than mine ( suburb ) and my store had no such system.
You are also likely to have serious problems in many ways if you resist a robbery, and kill your attacker.
OTOH your odds on being alive to have the PTSD, legal problems, and social stigmata if you succeed in killing your attacker are infinitely better. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 11:29 am: |
|
They will also explain that a policy of "do not" fight back is the one that protects them from lawsuits. When it all goes bad, the fault is clearly put upon the bad guy, and the business is clear of liability.
The problem with this sort of decision making is that the suits making the decision will NOT be the ones in the line of fire at 2:00 AM when some thug decides to rob the place.
 |
Clutchreaper
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 07:29 pm: |
|
Corporate America's view of not fighting back is entirely about risk management. As others have already chimed in, the policy has to be to not resist in order to reduce liability. Not having a policy and allowing employees to fight back will give the conception that the company endorses the behavior. All previously stated.
A company, no matter how large it is, is vulnerable to penalties from lawsuits if a no tolerance policy is not incorporated. If an employee was not disciplined for fighting back, another died as a result of a similar incident, and the company was found liable in a civil suit, the damages paid could be very impactful. Punitive damages can go deep into the company's pockets, as usually they are meant to keep the company from making the same poor choice again.
Comparing this to the Holocaust is completely irrelevant. That was a planned genocide. Robberies mostly occur from those who are not financially sound. Most do it to support a habit or a financial hardship (too lazy to get a legit job). The intention is to get the money, not to kill. Crime stats won't help here as a lot of crime is not reported. Crime where people are injured is more likely to be reported than crime where bodily harm was not committed (the exception would be rape as most women know their attackers and don't want the subject to get arrested or are too afraid because they know their attacker).
If somebody is going into a store to kill the cashier and take the money, they will most likely kill the cashier immediately. They would not take the chance to have an alarm sound or police notified. The chance to fight back, if it is already decided the cashier will be killed, is slim to none. If the cashier hasn't been killed and is already handing over the money, the chances of survival start increasing. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 09, 2013 - 07:42 pm: |
|
The chance to fight back, if it is already decided the cashier will be killed, is slim to none.
That's true of most all murders. The ability of the vast majority of the people to go from realization of threat to ANY response, much less an effective one in the time available...... not so good.
If the cashier hasn't been killed and is already handing over the money, the chances of survival start increasing.
Really? That would be nice, but I don't know if that's true, or wishful thinking.
The rest of your comments are thoughtful. The Venn diagram intersection here with the Holocaust is the restriction on weapons possession, more a 2nd Amendment issue than the condemnation of corporate butt covering that you point out well. PLUS the Holocaust was a matter of a culture of surender to the power of the Holy State, endemic to several goups, notably the "inteligensia" and Urban dwellers. The Jews in Europe have fallen vicim to their own desire to get along with people that wish to use them as tools to whip up hatred for thousands of years. ( which is actually quite relevant to this thread. )
(Message edited by aesquire on July 09, 2013) |
Clutchreaper
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 01:19 am: |
|
I'm not trying to argue here to piss people off, and I hope people see that. There are so many sides and perspectives to topics of debate that I like to throw out there because there is always more than just what we see. Being in the line of work where these situations are possible and there is specific protocol to follow to protect the associate it's hard not spit out the other sides of story.
To be truly authentic to how I would react, if it was my own business and I was facing such circumstances, the perps wouldn't stand a chance as there would be hidden guns underneath the counter, mounted on swivels, barrels facing forward. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 09:24 am: |
|
"I like to throw out there because there is always more than just what we see."
I like to argue too  It's the only way to really understand a topic. Sometimes the argument cements my position, sometimes it changes it. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 10:23 am: |
|
If the cashier hasn't been killed and is already handing over the money, the chances of survival start increasing.
I think there's bad reasoning behind that statement. See the Browns Chicken Massacre I mentioned earlier. Seven people were rounded up and walked into the freezer and killed there. If you kill the person who needs to open the cash box/register/safe, etc. you create a problem in getting the cash. Also when you snuff the first person right away, the next one who you don't have control of yet, know the score. Tactically, it's just a bad move to come in guns blazing. I'm curious what lead you to make that statement. |
Daves
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 10:34 am: |
|
I'm just glad that Double Lung Archery has no such policy.
I own the place.
Everything in here is mine.
The $ in the til is mine.
No one can steal any of it.
I see someone trying to rob my business the same as if I find an intruder in my apartment in the middle of the night.
My store is NOT a gun free zone!
Try at your own risk.
 |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 06:51 pm: |
|
Setting aside issues with Walmart, Sears, whatever, completely unrelated to this thread, most places have no resistance policies. As smartly written above, it's the only policy that makes sense from a Corporate Liability standpoint. Sucks, but understandable. I don't know If I CAN boycott all companies with such policies.
I can see protesting the firing of an employee that runs afoul of such policies, I work under such policies today, and when I was working night manager at a convenience store, Southland Corp. was very open about "you fight back, you get fired" and also open about the reason.
There's a whole pile of philosophy and history behind resisting being robbed, raped and murdered.
I know that the personal decision I made Re: Store robbery, was to try and analyze the situation as it happened, don't worry about the money, just the lives involved, and if it seemed the best way to deal with it was to resist, then go with massive overkill, and not stop until I'm the last one. Defined as last one breathing or capable of movement, 2 different things, and a moral problem.
You want a harder moral question?
You are confronted by multiple gang members. They make clear that they will kill you, and all your family. The ONLY way to save your family seems to be to kill every one of them before they can escape. THERE's a moral problem. What's your opinion? |
Clutchreaper
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 07:50 pm: |
|
'I'm curious what lead you to make that statement.'
Personal experience. Because of my field Ive had to respond and react to such critical incidents. Around a dozen. They were robberies and armed robberies.
Every situation is different, but the way each associate, or customer, reacted kept them from getting injured. Not one of them resisted, and each went one went home safe.
There were other times when perps would wait for the cashier to walk away and then break into the register. They tried to avoid a confrontation as much as possible.
This is why I have so much interest in this topic. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2013 - 09:08 am: |
|
So your statement about when someone gets killed is based on incidents where no one got killed? That makes no sense at all. You claim to have zero data on incidents where an attempt on lives were made. From that you draw a conclusion about when the attempt on lives will be made. Your conclusions are drawn from data that is non-existent. |
Clutchreaper
| | Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2013 - 07:07 pm: |
|
Before I drag this is on I only read up on the Autozone case. My viewpoint with that is the same. Most of my argument was from these situations.
I just read the Walmart story and I side with those employees. That case was clearly different.
My ••••••• didn't think to click the link. |
Clutchreaper
| | Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2013 - 07:35 pm: |
|
BTW, I'm really sick of typing. If you talked to me in person you would understand what I'm referring to and we would probably find an understanding.
Not looking to cop out.
If you want to get to the conclusion faster PM a number.
(Message edited by clutchreaper on July 11, 2013) |
Jon
| | Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2013 - 09:04 pm: |
|
I think it's important for everyone to know that the black man with the fake beard in the Autozone video report, was none other than our own dear Blake. Yes, sadly it's true.
Tears are streaming down my bearded and callous cheeks as I type this sad but necessary post. A post that has caused me such anguish that I farted while typing it.
Let us go from this place now, determined not to follow in his footsteps.
Come back to us Blake! Come baaaaaaaack..... |
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2013 - 11:43 pm: |
|
 |
Jon
| | Posted on Saturday, July 13, 2013 - 02:55 pm: |
|
Ahem! |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Sunday, July 14, 2013 - 05:42 am: |
|
This is a complex subject.
First, it's usually, classically, traditionally, best to cooperate with a robber. This p1$$es them off least. Since you are dealing with a desperate person, who has decided to use violence or the threat of violence to get what's usually a paltry sum of money, the robbers judgment and emotional state is faulty and often influenced by drug withdrawal, psych issues, and mental retardation.
Mental retardation? Yep. Lead paint, illegal drug side effects, etc. Remember Illegal drugs don't get QC. No clean rooms. No control of contamination, no temperature controls to avoid bad chemical reactions.... Making Meth is often a semi-suicidal practice involving clouds of acid vapor exploding out of a runaway reaction. Flip the can and run. Hope to avoid the poison gas that eats the skin on it's way to kill you.
Also, as a cost saving measure, we emptied the huge State Mental Institutions into the streets. Better hope the guy waving the gun at you in the Quikeemart isn't hearing voices you can't and that they aren't insisting the only safe way is to kill all witnesses.
Resisting a robbery can drastically increase your odds of death or injury. Just go ahead and tell a felon to go f himself while he's pointing a gun. Sure, you've got the right to free speech, but how about a little sanity?
That, and liability, and lawyers, are why most companies have "cooperate you idiot" policies.
OTOH, for all the reasons above, cooperating, especially in urban, Convenience Store, Jewelry Store, Pawn shop, Gold buying store, etc. may not change the odds on your getting shot at all.
It's not that the robber is making sound rational decisions. Anything might cause an accidental discharge, or panic pull of the trigger, even poor gun handling habits can kill you. Ever see a robber in a bank video with the index finger straight, carefully not pointing the gun at anyone?
You think the meth head quivering with rage/rush/withdraw has good sight picture or trigger control?
With the society wide dumbing down of schools, moral relativism, rejection of faith ( except in the System that Feeds you ) the emotional makeup of the robber has also deteriorated.
It's not like we're dealing by and large with emotionally mature, stable people, and that's been true since we used rocks to threaten each other. Throw in a 21st century public school system with a Self Esteem Dept. and you have a lot of emo-crippled childish adults.
OTOH I'm pretty sure Aristophanes bitched about society's breakdown causing a crappier class of thugs, though I bet he said it prettier. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 16, 2013 - 08:06 am: |
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/pennsylvania -teen-heroes/
3 Cheers for the latest Citizen Heroes!
Some will claim that these teen's actions were dangerous. That's true. Very.
Some will complain that the teens are vigilantes. Not so much, and I wish the complainer could feel the fear of having a child kidnapped. ( I DON'T want their child kidnapped!!!! I want them to have the feelings. Cretins. )
At 15 ( for the oldest ) these 2 teens, Temar and his Friend, almost undoubtedly saved this 5 year old's life.
THEY are righteous citizens. Thank you both.
Could this have ended in tragedy?
YES.
If the teens had been run over, or if they had done nothing. Life is like that. |
Jon
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 16, 2013 - 10:47 pm: |
|
I'll tell you that three kids foiled an armed robbery out here one night. Two boys came in from taking out the trash, the bad guy was sticking up the girl at the counter. One kid clocks the bad guy hard, the other kid tackles him, they wrestle on the floor, they yell for the girl to get help, she runs outside (there's a deputy writing a ticket) he runs in, the bad guy gets a round off, the deputy kills him.
(Message edited by jon on July 16, 2013) |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 07:44 am: |
|
http://www.infowars.com/florida-nurse-terrorized-b y-us-marshals/
Florida couple cuffed and detained for half an hour after they saw a man in a hunting vest aiming a rifle in the window at them. A bit nervous by this the swearing, screaming guy threatening their lives if they didn't open up didn't inspire confidence that they were, in fact, dealing with police.
Wiggins claimed they had a tip that the suspect, Kyle Riley, was inside the apartment complex, but admitted they had no specific information that indicated he was inside Goldsberry’s apartment.
Wiggins said when the people inside the apartment didn’t immediately open up, that gave them reason to believe they were harboring the alleged child rapist.
The U.S. marshal even had the audacity to say, “Nobody in the other units reacted that way.”
Tom Lyons, a reporter for the Herald Tribune countered, “Maybe none of them had a gun pointed at them through the window.”
Of course Wiggins didn’t seem to think that fact condoned the horrified woman’s behavior. He said he acted with restraint and didn’t like having a gun aimed at him.
“I went above and beyond. I have to go home at night,” said Wiggins.
Lyons argued, “She had a gun pointed at her, too, and she wasn’t wearing body armor and behind a shield.”
“She had no reason to expect police or think police would ever aim into her kitchen and cuss at her through her door to get in. It seemed crazy and she was panicked.”
Wiggins responded with, “We were clearly the police, she can’t say she didn’t know.”
“She does say so, actually,” said Lyons.
In an interview with Lyons the following day, Goldsberry explained, “I couldn’t see them. They had a big light in my eyes.”
The man she saw aiming a gun at her through the window had nothing visible that said “cop.”
“I was thinking, is this some kind of nutjob?” she said.
Turns out it was just a U.S. Federal marshal exercising what he thinks is his right under his authoritative title, and of course was “just doing his job.”
Eventually Wiggins admitted, “I feel bad for her. But at the same time, I had to reasonably believe the bad guy was in her house based on what they were doing.”
Despite the fact that she was pointing a gun at police, and Goldsberry wasn’t shot, Wiggins says, “She sure shouldn’t be going to the press.”
The suspect, Kyle Riley, was arrested several hours later in another part of Sarasota.
This is one of those cases where the militarization of Police is problematic.
In catalog after catalog, the police are being sold "swat" like outfits that share a fatal flaw, they Don't indicate on the front that they are police, and not zombie hunter, paranoid crazy, police wannabe, or Rambo wannabe. Often the "police" or "sheriff" label on the front is covered by a Velcro patch to make the DELIBERATELY PARAMILITARY SCARY "less conspicuous".
Often masks are warn by police in these circumstances, because of the desire for anonymity among narco officers who don't want to blow their covers after months of working undercover selling drugs. ( this makes sense, You are dealing with murderous drug dealers who learned civics from rap records, AND, very important, since the laws in NY, for example, make it more of a crime to sell Crack by the ounce than shoot a cop. )
The downside of playing Urban Commando for police is that any rational person who sees masked armed men knocking down the door to their home, screaming obscenities, and threating to kill all you mother**&&s, with NO VISIBLE IDENTIFICATION OR UNIFORM, has every right to believe they are under attack by crazed, racist, mad men.
In fact, I believe I'm supposed to shoot all those who act that way, inside my house, and "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat" don't apply at all, since you are under military assault by masked men.
Don't get me wrong I support local law enforcement, despite complaining about tickets and checkpoints to catch drunks, and paperwork errors.
But playing Lt. Calley, dressing for intimidation, and especially wearing masks and not identifiable uniforms while assaulting an apartment complex is very dangerous for citizens and police alike. |
U4euh
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 02:57 pm: |
|
Well I need to chime in here for two reasons:
1. I was a manager at AutoZone for almost 17 years
2. I was robbed at gunpoint while working in one of the stores.
Their policy was very clearly stated in the employee handbook(that each new hire has to sign stating they understand), that no employee will have in his/her possession a firearm, to include in their private vehicle in the parking lot.
Each register is equipped with a drop safe, and each CSR is required to do a drop of cash when the register till goes over a hundred dollars.
So is it worth the negative effects of having a shooting death in your store, or is it cheaper to replace the 100-400 dollars that got stolen in a robbery? Do the math from the corporate lawyers stand point. The cost of liability of a corporation being sued by the perpetrators family over wrongful death, or some other cobbled up bs, far out weighs the few hundred dollars they will lode in a robbery.
Now my story: I was the closing manager in Columbus, GA, Victory drive. Lived with my father at the time on Ft. Benning. When I was pulling into my parking space at home, I got out and a young black man approached me asking me if I was "such and person" don't remember the name he used. He quickly pulled out a 9mm and put it against my forehead, told we were going back to the store and getting the cash. He sat in the seat behind me with gun against my neck. Re entered the store and entered the failsafe code for the alarm system. This was supposed to trigger alarms, and a phone call from central security, in which neither happened. It took me 5 tries to get the safe open(combination) after which I stood and faced the wall. I had to dig a little to get that Memorial Day weekends cash envelopes out of the drop safe inside the larger safe, but he was able to accomplish this. Don't know how much he made off with, but I know it was in excess of 12,000 dollars, we had 3 straight day of 4,000+ sales. My saving grace, keeping a cool head and never let him know I was checking him out, but at the same time communicating to him that I had not seen his face and could not identify him. In front of me was a gallon of parts cleaner, my only possible weapon if I felt the need. But everytime I assured him I had not seen his face, he replied with "OK just be cool and you'll make out of this fine"
After him leaving with the money, of course I had to call the police, fill out the reports, blah blah. The only thing Autozone EVER said to me was take a few days off if you need it. The guy was later caught in another robbery of a resteraunt, and copped up to my robbery. Because he kidnapped me from federal property he put the icng on the cake(17 other robberies) and received life in prison.
Now had I had a gun in my car, it would have been under the front seat, he would be dead, and the tax payers would be happier. was it a smack in the face, yes. I won't tell you what resided under my seat from that point on, but promise it would not happen again, AZ proved where their focus was, damn sure wasn't on employee's.
Upto that point I understood their need to save face, but no longer. |
Two_seasons
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 05:28 pm: |
|
Sifo, I remember that slaughter like it was yesterday. Real tragedy.
Businesses are managing the "risk" factor, but note that NOT ONE OF THEM PUTS A SIGN AT THE FRONT OF THEIR DRIVE STATING THEIR WEAPONS POLICY! That is because they are cowards and expect us to become cowards too! |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 06:38 am: |
|
Partly, but also a sign that says "we are easy marks, rob us!" is self defeating.
Remember, "gun free" zones seem to be the most likely place to be shot. |
Clutchreaper
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 11:47 pm: |
|
Places that put signs on the front stating that weapons aren't allowed, in a CCW state, are then responsible for enforcing that policy. Should somebody enter the business with a weapon, harm or kill somebody with that weapon, the business can be held liable for not enforcing that policy.
Businesses are better off not putting up a sign not allowing CCW because should an incident happen in that place of business they are protected by state law.
Also, wouldn't you rather allow law-abiding citizens with CCW in your business because should a robbery happen they can act?
Maybe I interpreted the previous comments wrong. |
Thumper74
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 04:11 pm: |
|
It's the state's job to enforce that law. If there's a sign posted, you can't carry. In Ohio, they ask you to leave. If you don't, I believe it's just trespassing. Carrying in government buildings carries a stiffer penalty. Hanging a no CCW sign does not make the business liable for anything. If they are robbed, it's not their fault. Ohio has laws in place that prevent the business from being liable if a person were to act. I believe this was added to the CCW laws when they added the Castle Doctrine, which also limits the criminal and their family's ability to take civil action in the event of a self-defense shooting.
U4euh, I had a similar situation happen at Advance Auto Parts as a manager once. On my way out the door and guy came out from around the corner. My roommate worked at an AutoZone that was open until midnight as a PSM. They were robbed right before the Brinks truck came and again right before close. Probably the two times of the day with the most amount of cash in the store.
Admittedly, if you see me not in police custody, in a bar (rare), or in a government building/school, I'm probably carrying at least the P32. |
Two_seasons
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 05:49 pm: |
|
Here, in Wisconsin, if you have a concealed carry permit, you can not carry into a bar and drink alcohol. If you leave it outside, you can drink inside.
I'm not sure what the law says about carrying outside of the bar and drinking, while the bar door clearly says you can't carry inside. There are many places in WI where you can consume alcohol outside of the bar. |
Clutchreaper
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 10:40 pm: |
|
Think of this from a civil suit perspective (this would vary by state).
What I was referring to was not your liability in being robbed. A no weapons policy will not stop a robbery, unless you search at the door. I referred to if an incident occurred where anybody, especially a customer was injured, in let's say a weapon discharge, the business could be seen as liable because customers who enter that business can assume that there will be no weapons in that business since it is policy. The public has a reason to believe it is enforced so they would not ever be in any danger from such an incident.
There is a reason why major businesses don't post those signs. Their legal departments have determined they are protected by state law in a civil suit. Besides, if they were to enforce a no weapons policy they would need a policy and procedure to detect the unauthorized weapons. If they don't try to detect weapons, which most don't, but somebody gets shot, and they believed they wouldn't since weapons weren't allowed, the business may be penalized in a civil tort.
I am not familiar with how insurance policy would play into this, but I am sure it has an impact. Businesses that are self insured would obviously take the responsibility that goes with this policy very seriously.
The only assumed reason somebody would try to enter such a business with an attempt to avoid detection would be to commit an illegal act anyways.
I have no problem with businesses posting those signs, but they have to enforce them.
Two seasons. I forgot we do that here, but I feel it is necessary considering the way some of the crowds in Wisconsin bars get.
(Message edited by clutchreaper on July 26, 2013) |
|
