Shell Gas Clerk Protect's Himself from Knife Weilding Attacker...Clerk is Fired.

Bad policy. But, he had the option of leaving the job rather than complying with the policy. What he didn't have was the right to ignore the policy while remaining employed.

I wouldn't hire a guy like that because I wouldn't know what policies he would and would not follow. Simply put, he can't be trusted because he doesn't have the integrity to either comply or openly confront the policy.

When he grows up and owns a gas station he can then set his own policy.

it is probably a good thing he didn't obey this policy, he probably would be dead now. the old saying of "being judged by 12 and not carried by 6", takes on a real meaning. personally i own a few businesses and have better sense then to have this policy.
 

This story does remind me of the auto store, in VA beach (maybe?) that fired an employee that went to his truck, got his gun, and then scared off the robber that had his boss and fellow employee hostage. they fired him because he brought a firearm to the store. VCDL had a rally for him at a couple of stores in the area
 
Bad policy. But, he had the option of leaving the job rather than complying with the policy. What he didn't have was the right to ignore the policy while remaining employed.

I wouldn't hire a guy like that because I wouldn't know what policies he would and would not follow. Simply put, he can't be trusted because he doesn't have the integrity to either comply or openly confront the policy.

When he grows up and owns a gas station he can then set his own policy.

If push came to shove and any employee was faced with the decision of "save yourself or save the company", which side do you think most people would fall on? This employee was defended heartily by the store manager and the district manager. Obviously, he was a worker with integrity. He also gave more years to a job than most people do. Ten years working for a gas station is an extremely long tenure, also adding to his integrity. He made a moral decision: was he and his family that he takes care of more important than some faceless executives policy that says he is unable to defend himself during the night shift at a gas station where recently (notice the article said recently) there was a rise in robberies. Is it not possible that his decision to carry to work was sparked by these recent turn of events? The article doesn't delve into when he started to carry to work.

He chose to be protected while he still faithfully executed the duties of his job. In my opinion this is exactly the type of guy I would hire, a person who understands the duties he is to perform but still knows how to think for himself.
 
Bad policy for sure. No one, and I mean no one will deny me my right to self defense. He is not in any legal trouble, he just lost his job, and who would want a job, that the employer doesn`t care if you can go home at the end of the day.
 
there are no property rights in America. definitely no Business property rights. but the laws are on the side of the company. i do wonder if he could sue for endangerment? i would doubt it

Actually, property rights pre-empt a CPL and just about everything else short of a LEO under color of law. And the fact that the law is on the side of the company, as you said, means that the company has the right to determine whether they will allow you to defend themselves on their property.

This is very much like the Walgreens in Benton Harbor, MI, a few years ago, in which the employees were manhandled by two armed bad guys who attempted to rob the place. One bad guy jumped over the pharmacy counter, firing as he did so. The pharmacist pulled out his .38 and returned fire. He was fired because Walgreens has a non-escalation policy that bans carry on their properties. He was just supposed to let himself get beat up and possibly shot.
 
it is probably a good thing he didn't obey this policy, he probably would be dead now. the old saying of "being judged by 12 and not carried by 6", takes on a real meaning. personally i own a few businesses and have better sense then to have this policy.

If he had any integrity he would never have been in that situation because he either would have left his job or openly lobbied for a change in the policy.

He simply can't be trusted. He is an anarchist who makes his own rules.

Maybe next time he'll violate the policy against checking the level of gas in the tanks with a the light from a lighter. Who knows what he might do.

He wouldn't be working for me with that attitude. Fortunately I own my business and he does not, so I get to set policy and he does not.
 
He over-ruled bad policy with Constitutional Rights.
He used common sense. I'd welcome him on my staff.
The people that worked for me the past 30 yrs always knew they could bring up bad policies, or suggest better methods/policies.

The proper way to look at it: The owner/manager is still just a part of "The Team".
 
If he had any integrity he would never have been in that situation because he either would have left his job or openly lobbied for a change in the policy.

He simply can't be trusted. He is an anarchist who makes his own rules.

Maybe next time he'll violate the policy against checking the level of gas in the tanks with a the light from a lighter. Who knows what he might do.

He wouldn't be working for me with that attitude. Fortunately I own my business and he does not, so I get to set policy and he does not.

^^Say's the fascist-minded dictatorial sheepherder to his little staff of spineless sheeple.^^

SMFH
 
If he had any integrity he would never have been in that situation because he either would have left his job or openly lobbied for a change in the policy.

He simply can't be trusted. He is an anarchist who makes his own rules.

Maybe next time he'll violate the policy against checking the level of gas in the tanks with a the light from a lighter. Who knows what he might do.

He wouldn't be working for me with that attitude. Fortunately I own my business and he does not, so I get to set policy and he does not.

Did you actually see the interview of this guy? This guy has probably the least attitude of anyone I've seen. He's just a simple hardworking guy with humbleness to spare. Anarchist would be the last description I would give him. Where do you get "anarchist" from what you saw about him? What attitude did you see from him?

Also with your "checking the gas levels with a lighter comment", you insinuate that the man is stupid and bereft of common sense. In this entire scenario, he's the only one that had any. He made sure he didn't get killed.
 
If he had any integrity he would never have been in that situation because he either would have left his job or openly lobbied for a change in the policy.

He simply can't be trusted. He is an anarchist who makes his own rules.

Maybe next time he'll violate the policy against checking the level of gas in the tanks with a the light from a lighter. Who knows what he might do.

He wouldn't be working for me with that attitude. Fortunately I own my business and he does not, so I get to set policy and he does not.

He's been with the company for 10 years, and has the kind of reputation that prompted two managers to fight for him. He showed tremendous judgement and restraint in a situation in which he could have pulled off a shot, instead, he relied on the deterrent value of his sidearm to de-escalate the situation. I have read numerous postings from many others on this forum that have said they wouldn't have exercised this kind of discretion given similar circumstances.

Sorry, you may disagree with his decision to CC at work, but I applaud his restraint and ability to accurately assess what could have been a lethal situation. That shows both character AND good judgement. The situation illustrated, once again, the need to allow employees to carry on the job. You never know when they will be confronted with these circumstances - or worse.

If you make it a practice to carry at your business while denying your employees that same opportunity to defend themselves, you are a self-serving hypocrite.
 
He's been with the company for 10 years, and has the kind of reputation that prompted two managers to fight for him. He showed tremendous judgement and restraint in a situation in which he could have pulled off a shot, instead, he relied on the deterrent value of his sidearm to de-escalate the situation. I have read numerous postings from many others on this forum that have said they wouldn't have exercised this kind of discretion given similar circumstances.

Sorry, you may disagree with his decision to CC at work, but I applaud his restraint and ability to accurately assess what could have been a lethal situation. That shows both character AND good judgement. The situation illustrated, once again, the need to allow employees to carry on the job. You never know when they will be confronted with these circumstances - or worse.

If you make it a practice to carry at your business while denying your employees that same opportunity to defend themselves, you are a self-serving hypocrite.

Not to mention a total DOUCHE BAG.
 
The lack of personal integrity and the willingness of people to publicly confess it amazes me.

Given the number of people who seem to lack rectitude, I'm going to have to change my job application to include the following:

Will you follow all company policies or are you the type of anarchist who decides for themselves what polices you will and will not follow?
 
The lack of personal integrity and the willingness of people to publicly confess it amazes me.

Given the number of people who seem to lack rectitude, I'm going to have to change my job application to include the following:

Will you follow all company policies or are you the type of anarchist who decides for themselves what polices you will and will not follow?

^^The resident troll has spoken.^^
 
The lack of personal integrity and the willingness of people to publicly confess it amazes me.

Given the number of people who seem to lack rectitude, I'm going to have to change my job application to include the following:

Will you follow all company policies or are you the type of anarchist who decides for themselves what polices you will and will not follow?

You can do what you want with your application, but I have to agree with Augustine and Thomas Aquinas: "An unjust law is no law at all." Dr. Martin Luther King put it this way in his April 1963 letter from the Birmingham jail:

"One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust...

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I will obey ALL just laws/policies, but any law or policy that removes one's God-given right to self defense (which "degrades human personality") is unjust, and we are under no moral obligation to recognize and obey it.
Edited: Private property laws/policies are just on their face, but when the application of that law/policy serves to deny a citizen his/her Second Amendment right to bear arms, depriving them of their God-given right to self defense, it becomes unjust.

There are those on this forum who argue that the Constitution only protects us from the government, that we have no civil rights when we enter the premises of a business. Until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that was perfectly true - and segregation was the choice of the business owner. Businesses truly had the right to serve or exclude, hire or fire any person for any reason - race, religion, handicap, etc.; within the bounds of applicable building codes, they could design their structures without handicap facilities, parking spaces, or any other accommodation. They could even label bathrooms and drinking fountains for use by specific groups. But in 1964, congress made the determination that the Constitution protected us from each other, as well, from businesses in particular. The CRA of '64 wasn't written to give certain groups special privileges (although that is how it is often interpreted), it was written to insure that businesses recognized that those certain groups had the same civil rights as everyone else - with one important exception: they still weren't willing to recognize the rights of minorities to bear arms. That would have been too radical and, for some, too dangerous. So the CRA doesn't address the issue of firearms. It doesn't change the fact that minorities possess the same right to bear arms and to provide for their own self defense as whites.

The point is, congress made the determination that the Constitution protects us from each other, as well as from the government. Business owner property rights were severely curtailed by the enactment of the CRA.

I know there are some who will argue this point, but it doesn't change the historical FACTS.
 
You can do what you want with your application, but I have to agree with Augustine and Thomas Aquinas: "An unjust law is no law at all." Dr. Martin Luther King put it this way in his April 1963 letter from the Birmingham jail:


I will obey ALL just laws/policies, but any law or policy that removes one's God-given right to self defense (which "degrades human personality") is unjust, and we are under no moral obligation to recognize and obey it. Any law/policy that serves to deny a citizen his/her Second Amendment right to bear arms, depriving them of their God-given right to self defense, is unjust.


What an awesome post! Thank you!!
 
And which of the 10,000 gods would that be?

My business policies are not laws. You are free to ignore them...as long as you work someplace else. What aren't free to do is take a paycheck from me with dishonesty.

the one true God said nothing of a right to self defense. In fact, I checked with the one true God last night and was told that again.

You must be hallucinating.
 
And which of the 10,000 gods would that be?

My business policies are not laws. You are free to ignore them...as long as you work someplace else. What aren't free to do is take a paycheck from me with dishonesty.

the one true God said nothing of a right to self defense. In fact, I checked with the one true God last night and was told that again.

You must be hallucinating.

Then I suggest that you look up Luke 22:36, "He [JESUS] said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."

That command came from the One True God, by the way.

I'm not sure who you checked with.

And as I noted in my last post, segregation WAS policy until congress intervened and said that the Constitution protected us from unjust POLICY. EDITED: I'm going to give you an example of how the CRA protects us from POLICY, not just laws and the gov't.

I live in what was the unsegregated north. Segregation was never the law here, but as recently as 50 years ago my wife (who is African/Native-American) and I could not have bought the house we now own. Why? Because the business man who platted this area had a rider in the title of the property that forbad a Negro, Jew, Indian, or any of another of a number of ethnicities from owning property in his plat. It wasn't the LAW, it was POLICY. And why not? According to your argument, he was the owner of the business, the owner of the property, and had the right to say who would and would not be able to buy and own property in his plat (BTW, Ron Paul was big on this idea as well; it is his belief that the CRA unlawfully prevents business owners from doing what they want, and with whom they want to do it, and it was part of his campaign platform to do away with the CRA and the ADA). I have the original title deed to the original undeveloped lot. My wife was a little nervous when we bought our house 13 years ago and the title search turned up those documents. I had to remind her that the CRA nullified those conditions and made their inclusion illegal.

It wasn't the LAW in our area, it was one man's POLICY.

Guess what? The Constitution protects us from BOTH.
 
Thankfully nogods, your president has made it possible to survive without having to work for you. He will give us food, lodging, spending money, healthcare, and a cell phone. I would rather go on the government payroll, than work for you.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,520
Messages
610,643
Members
74,980
Latest member
Brad_R
Back
Top