Pizza Hut: No work for those who defend themselves?
posted at 11:55 am on April 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A Pizza Hut deliverer fired shots at an armed robber who threatened his life, wounding him and leading to the criminal’s capture by police. What kind of reward did James Spiers get for his self-defense? Unemployment:
A Des Moines pizza driver who was suspended from his job after he shot an armed robber said today he has been overwhelmed by support from people who cheered what happened.
“But no one had contacted me directly about a job offer,” said James William Spiers III, 38, who was sent home by Pizza Hut managers after he fired multiple shots at a man who put a gun to his head Thursday and demanded money …
Spiers, who has a valid handgun permit, said he’s been “pretty much in the dark” about his job since the incident. Vonnie Walbert, vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut’s corporate offices in Dallas, said last week that employees are not allowed to carry guns “because we believe that that is the safest for everybody.”
“I just know that, given what happened, it’s not likely I’ll have a job anyway,” Spiers said. “Right now, I’m just taking some time off, trying to cool things down.”
Pizza Hut has every right to set its employment conditions. If they think that their corporate image is better served by having their deliverers die on doorsteps around this nation than to have the ability to defend themselves, that’s entirely their decision. People can choose to work for a company that routinely puts them in harms’ way while insisting that they remain defenseless even though legal recourses for their self-defense exist. And they can fire a man who saved his own life and perhaps those of other deliverers by ending the career of a would-be robber and potential murderer.
That’s Pizza Hut’s prerogative. Of course, Pizza Hut’s customers and employees have choices in the matter as well. The deliverers can find work elsewhere for an employer who doesn’t require martyrdom over a ten-dollar delivery. Their customers can opt out by purchasing their pizza elsewhere, from pizza shops that understand that deliverers have the right to defend themselves.
Here’s one story that ended with two dead deliverers. Here’s another from earlier this year. Pittsburgh had one two years ago that remains unsolved. Badger Blogger reports on one from December in Wisconsin, where earlier another deliveryman wound up prosecuted for defending himself. A Chicago woman got murdered in 2006 while delivering pizza. Almost three months ago, another pizza-delivery murder occurred in South Carolina. A Google search turns up 574,000 hits for pizza delivery murder.
Which is more unreasonable: Spiers’ concern for his safety, or Pizza Hut’s lack of concern for it? Make your choice and let Pizza Hut know your decision. Call 1-800-948-8488 to offer your opinion on Spiers’ employment situation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
A dead pizza delivery man = one BIG lawsuit from his family. In this instance, a living yet unemployed pizza delivery man ‘who violated our policy and was terminated’ is not a liability. Sure, some ambulance chaser might take the victim’s case but on what grounds? His pistol-wielding client shouldn’t have felt threatened by a pistol-wielding victim who was breaking his company’s policy?
I’d love to see that one go to a jury….
Here’s the media contact for Pizza Hut, give him a piece of your mind. After all, it’s up to him and his PR shop to ’spin’ this one in a favorable light: ‘Dan.Skinner@zenogroup.com’
Biffstir on April 2, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Protesting? They went beyond a boycott and actually committed a crime by destroying private property in order to protest taxes levied by a third party. What a bunch of Sharptons they must have been… or worse actually.
But I disagree. I don’t think there’s any equivalence between Sharpton and the participants of the Boston Tea Party just like I don’t see any equivalence between the people in this thread and Sharpton.
FloatingRock on April 2, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Pizza men should be honorary federal employees, to be covered under the same rules as mailmen. You attack a mailman, you should probably clear your appointments for the next few years, and if you kill one, you should contact a priest for extreme unction.
Pizza men do the work of the Lord. We need to stop giving extra time to criminals for attacking people in a politically incorrect fashion and give the extra time to criminals who attack pizza men.
HitNRun on April 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM
if boycotts actually worked, more people wouldn’t roll their eyes at the mention of the word.
Pcoop on April 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM
1) His Car.
2) His Gun.
3) His Life.
He should still have his job.
rgranger on April 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Pizza Hut may not screen for drug use, but in this case the state of Iowa did. In order for this man to qualify for his permit to carry a concealed weapon he had to have a squeaky-clean criminal background. Additionally, Iowa is a discretionary issue state, meaning that the county Sheriff has full discretion in determining whether or not to issue the permit on a case-by-case basis.
This man had the permit. This means he had no criminal record and the sheriff personally saw no reason not to give him the permit. I think this speaks well to his character.
While some pizza delivery drivers may be unstable drug abusers, this man was not. He should not be fired for LEGALLY carrying a weapon and LEGALLY using it to protect himself from death or serous injury.
Pizza Hut should be ashamed for the way it is treating this man and the message that it is sending to its other employees–and their would be assailants as well.
mojojojo on April 2, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Well, let’s look at your theses. Oddly enough, it’s a post like yours that makes me despair about the Republican party. :)
Yes, and if a private citizen wants to own a gun he should join the military. I’ve heard a great number of these condescending dismissals while Virginia was fighting to get shall-issue concealed carry laws in place. But the right to defend oneself is not dependent upon career choice.
“All” restaurants? I know of a few in NoVA that will dispute that.
Maybe, maybe not. But then statistically, the chances of being confronted by an armed robber in the first place is lower in places where concealed carry is the norm. Even that aside, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to resist having one’s well-being be subject to the whims of a piece of human debris.
Actually, I think such policies are motivated out of an incorrect cost/benefit calculus, bolstered by ignorance of guns.
Irrelevant, because in many if not most states the bar for self defense is imminent fear of death or grevious bodily injury. In other words, if someone displays a gun to me in a threatening manner, I need not wait for him to take a shot at me before I shoot him. For that matter, if someone brandishes a knife at me from 21 feet away, I’m similarly able to defend myself.
While it’s happened before, the spectre of a crook-turned-victim suing is a mockery of justice and should not be tolerated, nor should it be indulged by actions designed to mitigate fears of such suits.
Irrelevant.
I don’t believe any here are “thinking with their trigger fingers.” In this we have a situation where a person was assaulted and he successfully defended himself. This sort of thing happens a LOT. We also get a glimpse of what could happen when an employer intentionally disarms its employees, just as we saw when a college intentionally disarms its students or teachers.
Likewise, no one is disputing Pizza Hut’s right to implement corporate policies. But there’s a consequence to those policies, such as my right to avoid Pizza Hut and make my displeasure known.
I actually don’t think so. It’s pretty much the same story we’ve been hearing for some time now…a guy defending himself from a crook against the wishes of a corporation more worried about some liability boogeyman.
JohnTant on April 2, 2008 at 2:21 PM
rgranger on April 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM
4) His agreement to abide by the rules set by his employer.
He should be discharged.
When was this place hijacked by a bunch of crypto-libs who don’t respect the right of private businesses to set rules of employment or understand the obligation of employees to follow the same?
Alamo on April 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Haha. Awesome.
OneGyT on April 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Ceteris Paribus. The liberal mind is incapable of understanding the concept of cause and effect.
ASSUMING that criminals will commit crimes regardless of the potential risk, self-defense does nothing but invite mass murder; and the death penalty is utterly pointless state-sponsored homicide.
ASSUMING that people will work always work as diligently as possible toward the common good solely to earn enough money to feed themselves, increased taxes will not reduce economic efficiency.
Etc., etc…
There are two sides to every issue. No liberal has ever understood that, and no liberal ever will.
logis on April 2, 2008 at 2:28 PM
hah and some people would wonder why it was always cold when I’d roll up and they’d continue to neglect to give me any sort of tips. At least I hope that’s what you are talking about too…I wouldn’t ever do anything vile to the food itself, but oops, my window was cracked and the box blew lid blew open, which did happen from time to time…
I remember driving to a non-tippers house at midnight in January and holding the pizza out the window. I wanted it ice cold and I didn’t want them ordering again. If it was something I liked I’d eat the toppings off of it, or I’d take a few slices and push it back together. Oh, and shaking up their Cokes.
Good times.
But I’ve seen some seriously heinous acts done to pizzas, too. So bad I threw away anything it touched. Pizza cutter, the screen it was cooked on, sauce ladle, etc.
manfriend on April 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM
JohnTant on April 2, 2008 at 2:21 PM
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Private enterprises have the right to set policy that supercede your rights as a citizen. The citizen has a right to either not seek employment under those rules or leave when he believes the policies are too restrictive. You have a Constitutional right to make bigoted or insanely stupid statements, an employer may discharge you for that. Under the Constitution you can be a complete and utter ass, disrespectful and rude. An employer (other than the airlines) will dsicharge you for same.
Again, I am mystified that so many here are on a private companies ass over clearly stated policy- that is their right. Even more amazing, that same policy is omnipresent in the business world. Its not like PH is the sole holdout on the right to carry issue.
Alamo on April 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Pizza delivery people are the second most likely to be murdered on the job, behind police officers. If anything, a sidearm should be standard issue.
Ortzinator on April 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Were you on the debate team in school? You left Pcoop’s arguments ripped to shreds and smoldering on the floor. Good job!
txsurveyor on April 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM
A dead pizza delivery man = one BIG lawsuit from his family. In this instance, a living yet unemployed pizza delivery man ‘who violated our policy and was terminated’ is not a liability. Sure, some ambulance chaser might take the victim’s case but on what grounds?
John Edwards isn’t busy these days. Sounds like his kind of case.
manfriend on April 2, 2008 at 2:36 PM
An easy choice to make…get fired, or get killed. Pizza Hut put him in a position of making a choice.
He chose to live another day, without a job…rather then have a job and not show up for work…ever.
right2bright on April 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I’m sorry, but calling people “crypto-Libs” doesn’t really add much to the conversation.
No one here is disputing that Pizza Hut has the right to implement whatever policies it wants, as long as they’re legal (ie no policy requiring fraud or something). I think you’re building a strawman. Nowhere have I said that Pizza Hut couldn’t disarm their employees (I said flat out”…no one is disputing Pizza Hut’s right to implement corporate policies.”). However, what I am saying is that the rationale of doing so is based on a faulty calculation.
However, what IS being floated is that we, as consumers, certainly have a right to make our displeasure known to that corporation, both through refusing to do business with it and telling it exactly why. If the stockholders decide that the business decisions of management are responsible for declining profits, then management will change. Indeed, I can think of nothing more conservative than a Burkean Hidden Law-type grassroots expression of this.
JohnTant on April 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Alamo,
JohnTant can defend himself, but I think, based on the quote below, that he agrees with your point that Pizza Hut can set any policies they desire. I agree that they can set policy and if employees don’t follow that policy, they can be terminated.
I disagree with Pizza Hut’s policy, but hey, I don’t work for Pizza Hut either.
txsurveyor on April 2, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Sorry, Mr. Tant already beat me to his defense.
txsurveyor on April 2, 2008 at 2:42 PM
D’OH!
No, HitNRun, US Mail carriers are NOT federal employees, at least not anymore. US Postal Service is now a private company that the government spun off a number of years ago.
Check it out. Their website is http://www.usps.COM and NOT http://www.usps.GOV.
Shirotayama on April 2, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Better than the debate team…I’m a USENet veteran!
Thanks for the compliment…
J
JohnTant on April 2, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Corporations do have a right to set their own policies and people have a right not to frequent businesses with policies they don’t agree with, and if you disagree that we have that right then you and your crypto-fascist comrades should take your Sharptonesque demagoguery to your nearest Pizza Hut or affiliated company and put your money where your mouth is.
FloatingRock on April 2, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Alamo, I understand what you’re saying. I agree the company has the right to set policy. I don’t agree with their policy and therefore, I won’t buy from them.
See, simple.
Geronimo on April 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Taxi drivers are also at risk of armed robbery and death all the time. My brother drove a taxi in Ft. Lauderdale for many years and quit after a fellow driver was shot and killed. In most cities they are not allowed to carry guns either. My brother used to tell any suspicious looking fares that if they tried anything he would run the cab into the nearest telephone pole and kill them both.
rockmom on April 2, 2008 at 2:51 PM
This happened a couple of years ago in Indianapolis (it was pretty high profile at the time). Pizza Hut fired him, but the Indystar, in an unusual moment of journalistic integrity, interviewed a number of privately-owned pizza joints in the same neighborhood, and they said not only did they carry, but their drivers did, too.
rightwingprof on April 2, 2008 at 2:52 PM
If they really wanted to punish him, they should have allowed him to continue being a pizza delivery boy.
Pizza Hut did the man a favor by firing him. Not intentional on their part, I’m sure.
Kristopher on April 2, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I can’t boycott Pizza Hut because I can’t stomach their cheap, greasy pizza. I wouldn’t eat it if it were free.
But I’m there in spirit.
NoDonkey on April 2, 2008 at 3:16 PM
JohnTant on April 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM
To clarify. My “apples and oranges” point refers exclusively to your “point 1″. I believe you inaccurately compared the obligation of a business entity to our rights as citizens. The “join the military” analogy is inappropriate. Your right to defend yourself if defined as the right to carry is most definitley constrainable by your employer.
I agree with your rebuttal of pcoop’s second point and would carry that further. Regardless of the risk or probable outcome, it is my right to resist based solely on my unwillingness to suffer an assault on my dignity. A personal choice.
Agreed also that “who fires first” is irrelevant.
Again, the threat of litigation I agree weighs too heavily in our society, and favors the felon. While individual citizens may eschew that risk, public corporations must weigh that for their stakeholders. The deeper the pockets, the greater the risk. Now, shooting lawyers, there’s an idea thats time has come.
Finally, I don’t take umbrage with the fact that many here would like for PH to know their displeasure. However, it seems like a wider cast net makes more sense in that the company promulgated policies against armed employees is extremely widespread. So it is not an individual company that must be convinced, but business across the board and the public in general.
I have repeatedly asked for someone to enlighten me as to the existence of a nationally recognized company that endorses or simply condones employee carry. Crickets.
Alamo on April 2, 2008 at 3:19 PM
You did this to customers because you didn’t like the size of their tip? Then brag about it?
a capella on April 2, 2008 at 3:26 PM
JohnTant on April 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Oh, and the “crypto-lib” comment was directed at the person who insisted that the driver should still have his job. That position implies that PH had no right to discharge an employee for a rules violation. Certainly it is a liberal and not a conservative disposition to contend that private enterprise does not have the right enforce policy.
Alamo on April 2, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Hey JohnTant,
Most pizza delivery people don’t get those jobs so that they carry guns. I never said anything against a person’s right to carry a gun. So far all I’m hearing is this “he’s got a right to carry a gun” argument. Nobody’s debating that. However, nobody seems to focus on the fact that not only is there a time and place where you should have a gun with you, you are also beholden to the rules of any palce you happen to be in. If they don’t want guns in their place, it’s well within their right too. If they say you should not carry a gun while you are working for them, it is well within their right. If the driver didn’t agree with the policy, he should have quit, that was within his power to do so. Funny how some of us get upset when people try to impose their policies on us but, God forbid, you tell someon they can’t take their gun into someone’s private property and it’s time to scream bloody murder. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in that?
I’ll give you that, I may have been a little general.
Conceal carry wasn’t my point. My point was the policies of many resturants when it comes to dealing with armed robberies. So your attempt at an “ah-ha gotcha” moment is really moot, despite the fact that your using statistics that support your point. Not going to debate you there. But again, it’s this private company’s policy that was violated. Are you comfortable forcing you’re beliefs and opinions on them because you don’t agree with their policies? Are you a smoker?
Yeah because we all know the potential loss of property or lives (yours and other people’s) is no where near as important as nailing the son of a bitch who tried to hold you up. The people who run businesses have no clue what’s going on, they’re all ignorant as hell. (note: heavy sarcasm)
from your standpoint, yes. True, not gonna argue that point. From someone who needs something in a pending legal case, no. Nowadays, if you sneeze at someone, you can get sued. You see, it can be pushed into a “he said/he said” case. Is there any collaborating witnesses who saw what happened? Do we have tapes of the 911 call?
Who do you think pays the legal costs for a trial like this if Pizza Hut is sued?
I’ll give you five minutes to think of the answer.
Until we have people in government who put a stop to that, you’re just wishful thinking. Sorry, but there is this thing called the real world that puts an end to any statement that starts with the words “should, could or would.”
Of course it is, it was an attempt at humor. Obviously it failed.
That is a little presumptive on your part. Do you really believe it was intentionally disarming their employees or could there have been a bigger reason behind it?
If you don’t think pulling out a gun to someone who also pulls out a gun doesn’t carry the posibility of other people getting hurt, then you’ve been watching too many cop dramas. You may stop the robber, but at what expense. There’s nothing wrong with the passive approach at times. It’s actually called for in many cases.
Totally within your right, but for me, their policies are not the reason I don’t go to them anymore. Their product is. To be honest with you, I could care less what happened here.
Sorry for any typos, I was rushed in writing this.
Pcoop on April 2, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Then again, we need to start somewhere, with one. I pick… Pizza Hut.
psrch on April 2, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Pizza Slut.
Taco Hell.
I’d shoot myself if I had to eat that dung.
Parley on April 2, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Anyone here read SnowCrash?
Also wasn’t the bullet-proof vest “invented” by a pizza delivery guy.
liquidflorian on April 2, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Then again, we need to start somewhere, with one. I pick… Pizza Hut.
I have heard the exact same phrase from Sharpton, “we have to start somewhere”.
Sadly, Shartonesque rationality and tactics manifest themselves among ostensible conservatives. What’s next, extortion?
We have multi-nationals that support the craziness of Global Warming and endorse the insane fiscal policies proposed to combat that “threat”, companies that have openly endorsed actual gun control, companies that endow the leftist Pew foundation, companies that support Peta, DU, Air America, DK, socialized medicine, and on and on. And yet, “conservatives” here would prefer to vent their spleen at PH over a comapany policy issue.
No wonder we get our asses kicked.
Alamo on April 2, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I hear the exact same phrase every time I start house cleaning or start a new project. Are you saying I have Sharpton to thank for that? Your argument is ridiculous and was lost back on page one.
FloatingRock on April 2, 2008 at 4:15 PM
The exact same thing has happened before with Pizza Hut, and they survived the boycott.
Many claims are made of the dangers of pizza delivery men, but no specifics are ever given. Some quote the Dept. of Labor. When I look up their statistics, the closest I see to pizza delivery guy is “driver/sales workers,” and there were only 10 homicides out of 516 total.
Just as many waiters were killed as correctional officers. If jailers carry guns, I guess waiters should as well.
dave742 on April 2, 2008 at 4:19 PM
You make sound points except for this.
I don’t think avoiding a business because one disagrees with it’s business policies is extortion, is it? If it had a sign saying “No Catholics Allowed” or “Speak Only English” would avoiding that establishment be extortion or Sharptonesque rationality?
a capella on April 2, 2008 at 4:28 PM
It’s a personal choice for me not to buy from PH. I don’t think they’ll miss me, they have plenty of people to keep them busy.
So far, I don’t buy from Miller because of the gayest public fair I’ve ever seen and that’s saying something because I’ve been to both Provincetown, MA and S.F, Ca. (No i’m not a butt-pirate.)
I try to only go to Sunoco because they use sweet crude, not from the Middle East. I stay away from Mobil, Shell and even Gulf. It’s just a conscience thing for me. Why am I going to pay the people who are trying to kill me? Bush may be in bed with them but I’m not.
Now I will avoid PH. No big deal. It’s juts a conscious decision I’ll make for my own peace of mind.
Not so crazy about Chicita banana’s either. Weren’t they the ones who paid terrorists to leave their farms alone? Not a big deal to me because I’m not a fan of the nana’s.
Does anyone have any places they avoid? Why?
Geronimo on April 2, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Company policy issues that ENDANGER EMPLOYEE LIVES are important issue to discuss. Not only boycott is required, but a firm demand to lawfully disallow any policy which forbids employees prone to robbery such as delivery people and truck drivers to defend themselves.
If you think personal security is not important, you are a raving fool.
Aristotle on April 2, 2008 at 4:41 PM
What’s ridiculous is to lodge a vehement protest against a single company whose policy is so universally pervasive. Pissin’ in the wind.
My point vis a vis extortion is that the only way Reverend Al makes that kind of shit work is to extort. You want to be “effective” keeping reading his playbook.
Of all of the wacked out premises and leftwing causes supported by companies in the USA, folks are getting torqued about THIS? The very definition of ridiculous.
Again. Conservatives: We are laughably inept at focusing on what’s inmportant.
Alamo on April 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Again. Conservatives: We are laughably inept at focusing on what’s important.
Alamo on April 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Geronimo on April 2, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Not a fool. An NRA Lifemember, a CCP holder, and one who openly and vigorously defends the 2A and the right to carry.
Singling out a company that maintains a policy of unarmed employees THAT IS NEARLY UNIVERSAL is stupidly ineffectual. If anyone here wants to lobby for the right across the employment spectrum, I would jump on board.
If PH or Dominoes or UPS or any other delivery based business had difficulty hiring drivers because of the policy, they may well change. If there were a right confirmed in the courts, they’d have no choice.
Now, let’s say YOU own a business that employs oh, 10,000 people and your customer demands they have CC rights. Your insurance carrier will dramatically increase your liability rates. One questionable incident, in light of your policy, will potentially destroy your brand, not to mention likely lead to legislative action (by you know who) against your company and probably your industry.
To ever expect any level of pressure against a single company would lead them to even consider a unilateral carry policy is so absurd that one who fancies that notion must be on dope.
Have any of you sumbitches ever been involved with running a business of any appreciable size? Couldn’t have.
Alamo on April 2, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Alamo, do you have a vested interest in Pizza Hut or any affiliated companies?
Which backs up the point I’ve been making that there is no equivalence between Sharpton and those of us in this thread who will no longer do business with PH or affiliated companies. Unlike Sharpton, nobody here is motivated by greed or personal gain.
Hardly. The right of self-defense is the cornerstone of freedom and liberty.
I’m confident that I’ll be able to maintain my focus every time I drive by Taco Hell on my way to a competing establishment where I’ll be buying my Mexican food from now on. I think I’ll even be able to chew gum at the same time.
FloatingRock on April 2, 2008 at 4:57 PM
OK, and as a sneak preview for the tome I’m about to write, here’s where *I* was coming from…
Suggesting that the guy should change his career so he could be allowed to carry a gun is, well, condescending. There is a shade of Jim Webb in that when Webb said that if people want guns they should join the military. While I have sympathy for the argument that if he carries against company policy he should be terminated, I was speaking more in the general sense that the policy should not exist to begin with. I was also trying to address the misdirection of the point I was responding to (more on that in my next post).
JohnTant on April 2, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Geronimo, light sweet crude…per my understanding…comes from Nigeria. Home to a non-Christian dominated miltary government, home to violent persecution of Christians and destruction of their churches. You get my point.
This is why, when I can, I go out of my way to purchase gasoline from Hess. Their gasoline, per my understanding, is sourced from North American crude.
I pay a little more. But am glad my $$ (hopefully) aren’t funding terrorists.
To the people who say boycotts don’t work, well, maybe they don’t. But I can’t pay for what goes against my principles, and if I HAVE an alternative, I’ll exercise my choice to purchase that alternative.
Shirotayama on April 2, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Pcoop on April 2, 2008 at 1:15 PM
When I had a gunman rob me, he shot first and I lost my right eye. Since then I have got no qualms about shooting first. let the bad guy shoot first and you are most likely dead. I was lucky.
Johan Klaus on April 2, 2008 at 5:24 PM
On the one hand, it sucks that he lost his job for doing the right thing. On the other hand, its just a crappy job at Pizza Hut. Think of what a story THAT would be on your next interview!
“Why were you fired?”
“A guy tried to mug me so I shot him in the chest.”
if it makes him feel any better, I prefer Dominoes.
Capitana on April 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM
You were definitely lucky. Sorry about your eye. Were you carrying when you were shot?
txsurveyor on April 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM
I don’t want to dissect the entire post, because, well…that’d be boring. Instead I’ll just make a few highlights where I think the train of thought is leaving from the wrong station.
Well, I think that’s a given. I daresay that they got those jobs so they could earn money to buy things. People who carry guns do so to protect themselves from criminal lowlifes. I doubt anyone with a concealed handgun permit is looking at Pizza Hut as an avenue for vigilante justice.
I don’t think there’s hypocrisy here at all. Nowhere have I said that Pizza Hut shouldn’t have the right to implement whatever policies they think are necessary. But what I am criticizing is the particular policy in and of itself. I think it’s a dumb policy. I think that it endangers their drivers, now even moreso with media attention highlighting that their drivers are unarmed. Bringing up personal property rights and practices is a red herring in this case. If I know a business that does not want guns in his store, I do not go into the store. Easy. Similarly, now that I know about Pizza Hut’s policy, I will not patronize them and I’ll be sure to let them know why. It’s hard to see how that’s hypocritical…
As for there being a time and a place to carry a gun, I sure wish I knew exactly what those were, because then I wouldn’t be carrying my handgun around unnecessarily.
Concealed carry is precisely the point, because the driver had a concealed carry permit. If you want to say that a person is more likely to survive an armed robbery if he curls up in a fetal position and cries for mommy, then it’s equally as valid to examine what could prevent the armed robbery in the first place.
And again, I’m not forcing my beliefs on anyone. I’m happy to stay out of a restaurant that does not want to serve gun owners, just as I am with those who don’t want me to smoke cigars in them.
Are you going to call me a cowboy next? I mean, seriously, what the hell are you talking about?
A fellow is holding a gun on me. My life is already potentially lost. The best way to address that is to make the other guy’s life even MORE subject to potential loss. It sure beats hoping that he won’t decide that he wants to kill me. Even better, introducing an element of doubt as to who among the potential victims may be armed.
Ah, Loki’s Wager.
If the criminal wants to sue the deliveryman, the burden of proof is upon him. Else, a jury will have to assess whether the guy really feared for his life. Happens all the time.
How kind of you. :)
Who pays the legal costs in a wrongful death suit….?
While it’s happened before, the spectre of a crook-turned-victim suing is a mockery of justice and should not be tolerated, nor should it be indulged by actions designed to mitigate fears of such suits.
There are already a number of laws governing self defense. Virginia, for example, has laws addressing this very thing. Castle Doctrine laws are but another example. Things like this, however, do not get addressed until there’s a vocal (read: Grass Roots) movement to draw attention to them, and things like this tend to provide a useful springboard for doing just that.
That is the Real World. :)
Don’t blame the audience for a bomb. :)
How can it be anything other than intentional? What, Pizza Hut accidentally disarmed their employees….?
If you think that people don’t get killed during armed assaults, you haven’t been watching enough Batman.
If anything, it’s the “passive approach” that has motivated the criminal culture more than any other single factor in history, in my opinion. Again, crime figures in shall-issue states bear this out. I can be passive all I want in Washington DC, but I still bear a greater risk of being murdered than I do in Richmond, VA….
A crook wants an easy score, not a person defending himself. Passivity enables them.
NOW you tell me…..
:)
JohnTant on April 2, 2008 at 5:42 PM
I’ll ask one more time. Was he fired or suspended? This makes a world of difference in the extensive dialog I’ve read. I say this , because , in the end, it’s whether they actually fired him for his actions or not. Anyone know at this juncture?
MNDavenotPC on April 2, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Pcoop, I had a longish response to you but it looks like HotAir ate it. :( I’ll try to reconstruct tonight.
JohnTant on April 2, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Pcoop on April 2, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I was working late at my business and not within reach of my weapon. After I was shot, I ran to my weapon and returned fire.
Johan Klaus on April 2, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Instead of saying that people like me disgust you, why don’t you go to your local bank and ask them why they prefer to let robbers go. Sometimes, it’s better to show restraint because of the worse impact a lact of restraint would have. Even if in this one instance escalation is the right thing to do.
mycowardice on April 2, 2008 at 5:49 PM
I’m sorry that happened to you. But really, statisically, the huge percentage of handgun violence occurs with people who know each other already. Your’s is a situation that doesn’t happen quite as often. But I can’t argue with how you see things, I probably would see it that way if I were you. I can’t imagine what that was like.
Pcoop on April 2, 2008 at 5:51 PM
It’s not “singling out”, it’s SIGNALING out. Boycotting if done correctly, makes a global impact. It’s a Fact. A change always starts with something, unless you have lobbyists for hire on CH. Creating a public atmosphere which states clearly that putting people’s life at risk is UNACCEPTABLE will lead to more companies choosing to go that way, and will eventually lead to legislation. Not the other way around.
Moreover, I’m all for boycotting, i know they are effective and i don’t think they are conservative way of thinking. But even if your opinion is different, endangering people’s lives should make you boycott the company even if it’s completely ineffective.
Buying a pizza when i know the delivery guy is subjected to unneccesary danger because of my order is something i wouldn’t do regardless of effectiveness.
Aristotle on April 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM
JohnTant
I’m being realistic, I’ve grown up around guns my whole life. You should seen my one uncles collection, you’d be drooling.
Not every situation like what we are talking about is a situation that can be resolved by whipping out your piece.
Hypothetical:
A guy pulls a gun on you and tells you to cooperate and you won’t get hurt, you suddenly reach for yours. In the two seconds (roughly) that it took for you to get your gun, it takes half that time to get a bullet in your head. The guy is already freaked out, you pushed him over the edge because now you were going to defend yourself and he panicked, now you’re dead. But if you remained calm and rational, the chances that he may not have done anything extreme would have been lower. In most cases of armed robberies, they don’t want to hurt you either. But now, you’ll never know that now will you? Cuz you’re dead.
Was it worth it?
Pcoop on April 2, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Was anybody debating this?
slow day at work. For every one situation like this, there’s probably hundreds more like them that don’t get reported, until we can get certain tort laws changed and guns aren’t so negatively frowned upon but the idiots who abuse them are, things won’t change.
What I’m trying to say is that carrying a gun, doesn’t always guarentee your safety, it increases the odds yes, but doesn’t make it 100%. And from a liability standpoint, I’m not so quick to pass judgement on Pizza Hut like 90% of the people here.
I find it intersting that we lambast liberals who paint corporations as evil people who don’t care about the little guy. Here we have one who says no guns, more than likely for liable and insurance reason above anything else, and people here make them out to be evil and don’t care for the little guy.
Sorry, can’t have it both ways.
Pcoop on April 2, 2008 at 6:13 PM
The problem with comparing a bank/store roberry to a driver robeery is one of location. Most buildings will be well lit, have some type of security alarms/cameras and probably more than just one person. Drivers are on their own in the dark with nothing to safeguard themselves with except harsh language.
If company decides their bottomline is more important than an employee’s life than that is certainly their right however it is my choice not to cpnduct business with that company.
VikingGoneWild on April 2, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Anyone packing should have already run all scenarios through his mind beforehand. I’m never going to resist someone who has a gun directly on me at point blank range, say a carjack or armed robbery. I can avoid most situations where I’m vulnerable to that happening with situational awareness. If it does happen, there will probably be an opportune moment,..or it may not be necessary. Your hypothetical situation assumes a lack of common sense on the part of the victim.
BTW, I think the shopping center in Omaha where the mass murders took place is being sued because of their No Guns/lack of protection policy, and I believe Virginia Tech also is being sued. Liability can come in many forms when a consumer is injured.
a capella on April 2, 2008 at 6:20 PM
If you’re afraid of guns you should try hiding in your basement or something instead of trying to prevent the rest of us who are capable of defending ourselves from doing so. Pacifism and cowardice have always had adherents within every human population throughout history but it has always been a fringe element that natural selection would have weeded out if not for the bravery of others not afflicted by these personality disorders. Throughout the ages, despite their best efforts to convince brave men of the folly of their ways, cowards and pacifists have been unsuccessful; else their civilization’s crumble.
FloatingRock on April 2, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Pcoop on April 2, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Most robberies now days are perputrated by drug addicts, who do not think rationally. A person pulling a gun and firing can shoot a criminal before the criminal can react. Ask any policeman who has under gone training on holding a weapon on a suspect. At the gun range that I use we see that demonstrated all of the time, when the officers are training. You do not pull a gun and point at someone without instantly firing, without putting your life in jeopardy. The young officers are the most surprised, when the training officer pulls a gun and “shoots them” before they can react.
Johan Klaus on April 2, 2008 at 6:39 PM
I don’t care where you work, who you work for, don’t be a victim, what ever it takes. If you start young enough, you will never loose that edge.
Farmer62 on April 2, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Now I’m irked that I had lunch at Pizza Hut today with some coworkers.
aikidoka on April 2, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Anyone can construct a hypothetical to prove a point. However, numerous training doctrines specifically address the situtation you put forth. One, developed by Col. Jeff Cooper, puts a premium on situational awareness and the use of color codes to describe risk in a situation. For instance, condition white is blissful ignorance, such as when you’re asleep. Condition yellow is heightened awareness of one’s surroundings. If you’re carrying a gun, you’d better be in condition yellow.
And as I’m in condition yellow, I’ve noticed the guy approaching me, noticed that there’s something odd about him, and particularly about the way his hand is in his jacket pocket. So I zero in on him and go to condition orange…in which case I’m either ready to get my handgun or my hand is already on it. I’ll also likely make eye contact and ask him if I can help him in some way. If he persists, condition red and the handgun comes out.
Also, if you make the decision to carry a handgun you also make the committment to think through a number of scenarios in your mind and decide on what you’ll do well before it happens. Making decisions on the fly do not turn out well.
Getting back to your hypothetical, if I’m in a situation where some guy gets the drop on me, then I’ve failed my training…which is why I train so it doesn’t fail me and I don’t open myself up like that.
JohnTant on April 2, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Who said I was afraid of guns? I think you’re reading into what I’m saying There are other people who answered my hypothetical in really good ways, then there’s this response.
I’m trying to direct people from pointing fingers at Pizza Hut exclusively. I’m trying to get people to look at every possible angle of this. You guys are so quick to pass judgement it’s sad. There are a lot of places that refuse guns on their premises. You gonna stop going every place that doesn’t allow them?
Pcoop on April 2, 2008 at 6:51 PM
I’m not sure what you think I’m trying to have both ways here. If a business doesn’t want me to carry in their store, then fine. I won’t go in their store and I’ll let them know why. I’m not keen on bringing the full faith and credit of the US Government down upon the heads of private businesses. On the other hand, I think that the business owner should know why I’m not patronizing him. That way he can make an informed decision as to whether he wants my business or not.
Further, I don’t think anyone here is saying Pizza Hut is evil. I certainly think they are wrong in their policy, but I also think that they genuinely believe it’s in the best interests of their employees that they don’t carry. It’s that attitude that I’m engaging, not the sheer right of the corporation to implement policy. I simply think their reasoning is flawed. It’s hard to see how that’s hypocritical.
JohnTant on April 2, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Haven’t you indicated several times that people shouldn’t try to defend themselves, shouldn’t even be allowed to try, because somebody might get hurt?
FloatingRock on April 2, 2008 at 7:05 PM
If I ever take up a life of crime and rob a store I’ll be sure to target one with a no guns allowed sign in the window.
FloatingRock on April 2, 2008 at 7:10 PM
if memory serves me right, the man who started SECOND CHANCE BODY ARMOR was a pizza delivery man who was shot and wounded during a delivery. he decided there was better way to make a living.
bootheel on April 2, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Nothing that we do has a 100% gauranty.
Johan Klaus on April 2, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Congratulations, you’ve taken grasping for straws into a new art form.
Pcoop on April 2, 2008 at 8:14 PM
I’m not sure what you think I’m trying to have both ways here. If a business doesn’t want me to carry in their store, then fine. I won’t go in their store and I’ll let them know why. I’m not keen on bringing the full faith and credit of the US Government down upon the heads of private businesses. On the other hand, I think that the business owner should know why I’m not patronizing him. That way he can make an informed decision as to whether he wants my business or not.
JohnTant on April 2, 2008 at 6:57 PM
What about your bank, church, hospital or kid’s school?
Would you stop going there if you couldn’t carry? I’m all for the second admendment here but there is a point where this becomes absurd.
Pcoop on April 2, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Perhaps – that’s a decision only I can make at any given place and time. It is certainly not a decision that anyone else is competent to make in advance with zero knowledge of the future circumstances.
Nobody has the right to restrain me involuntarily (or without probable cause, of course), and I will not abide it.
LimeyGeek on April 2, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Really? Absurd? Why? In which one of these locations are crimes magically prevented from happening? How does my armed presence affect anything? From where do you derive your absurdity?
LimeyGeek on April 2, 2008 at 8:37 PM
PS. Nice playlist on your site ;)
LimeyGeek on April 2, 2008 at 8:52 PM
If so, I apologize—but then what was the point of your hypothetical in your 6:02 post? It is identical to the rhetoric used by gun control groups to argue against concealed carry laws. They say that people who have concealed guns and try to defend themselves are more likely to get themselves killed along with innocent bystanders, yet statistics show that every state that allows concealed carry has a significant reduction in crime.
In your 5:51 post you said,
Again, this sounds very similar to anti-gun rhetoric we’ve all heard before where they dismiss the value of having a gun for self-defense…. They say that having more guns in circulation leads to more accidents and such and that we’d all be better off if we weren’t allowed to have guns. The costs outweigh the benefit.
And some of your other statements, such as in your 3:35 post in which you said,
I’ve taken notice of your heavy sarcasm remark but in the context of the comment, which perhaps I’ve misinterpreted, it sounds like your suggesting that people who attempt to defend themselves are actually being macho or are eager to kill the perpetrator for their own personal gratification, damn the consequences. Again, this sounds similar to anti-gun rhetoric I’ve heard.
But still, looking over your posts, you’ve stated several times that you’re OK with guns and concealed carry laws so maybe I’ve misjudged your intent, and I apologize if I have, but I’ve also often noticed that gun opponents will pretend to accept guns in a limited capacity but who in reality clearly don’t and only use it as a Trojan horse to strengthen their argument. That was the context of my post at 6:31.
FloatingRock on April 2, 2008 at 9:33 PM
May the store he worked for be bankrupt in 77 days.
allrsn on April 2, 2008 at 11:13 PM
I think this guy deserves a raise and a promotion.
Won’t be buying products from any of Yum’s establishments anymore. I don’t do business with pro-criminal enterprises.
Dave R. on April 3, 2008 at 12:19 AM
My husband used to do deliveries in the ‘hood for a local pizza company. He wasn’t allowed to carry guns either.
Let’s look at it from the company’s perspective:
They would have to either ban it for everybody, or make a CCP/CCL a requirement for a pizza delivery job. It’s cheaper to forbid guns to everybody.
To make packing heat optional just means that if someone who elects not to carry a weapon gets shot, he can sue on the basis of not being provided or required to provide equipment necessary for his or her safety.
If they make a CCP/CCL a requirement for the job, they could end up on the hook for the required classes for what usually ends up being a minimum wage job.
Sekhmet on April 3, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Everyone should be allowed to carry a gun, period. I stating thatbefore you crucify Pizza Hut for what they did to actually think about it from their stance. But no, it’s hard to get anyone to think that around here when the Pavlovian reponse to the word “gun” is to start drooling. I’ve worked in resutrants, I’ve been a pizza delivery person. I heard the reasons behind that type of rule. It makes sense to me. But when it comes to 2nd Admendment rights and the right to carry guns, we have people here who turn into a pack of liberals (for lack of a better word) screaming about how neglectful this corporation is and they should have a right to carry their guns anywhere regardless what others think. Like the second admendment gives you the right to overstep what another property owner wants or doesn’t want. “To Hell, with you, I have a right to carry this.” You can deny it all you want but it’s up and down this damn thread. I’m sitting here reading posts from Officer Tackleberry accusing me of being anti-gun just becuase I’m not willing and quick to jump on the “Boycott Pizza Hut” bandwagon and I wonder how many of you people have ever run corporations with thousands of stores all over the world and have ever had to deal with lawsuits that pop up from money-hungry attorneys over the dumbest things. It makes anyone afraid to do anything becuase nobody likes to get sued. It’s makes doing the right thing nowadays that more difficult.
Go ahead an label me whatever the hell you want. I’m sorry that I’m the only one looking at this through all sides.
Pcoop on April 3, 2008 at 7:00 AM
Virginia is permit-on-demand thanks to Gov. George Allen. At one time the Sheriff had the say. The Police Chief in the town across the river from me made it his business to turn down everybody for a permit before the law was changed. He was of the mind nobody but his cops should have guns. He liked the police state that was his mini-Washington DC.
Now in Virginia, you take a gun safety course if you dont have a military discharge, apply to the county clerk’s office, pass your background check and get your permit it two to six weeks.
The editor of the local liberal rag had his shorts all in a bunch when Allen proposed this. There was one editorial after the other how Virginia’s cities were going to turn into Old West Dodge City, and the streets would run red with innocent blood. He was of the mind only the cops should have guns too. None of that happened of course, and crime went down in the Commonwealth. And the editor was eventuallly demoted. He now works for some rag in Florida.
abcurtis on April 3, 2008 at 7:09 AM
I beg of you…change the picture of the pizzas to a smoking gun or something.
…hunger rising….rising…
Asher on April 3, 2008 at 9:23 AM
All Pizza Hut delivery vehicles now do not need to post a sign that reads: “Rob me. I am unarmed.”
Steve McCullough on April 3, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Is that why they are changing the name to PASTA HUT?
seabee1 on April 3, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Too bad the idiots at Pizza Hut care more about their image and reputation then their employees (or pizza quality for that matter) Any reputable company has policies against exposing their delivery people to dangerous situations, hell even the post office can refuse mail delivery if their carriers are in danger ( like the first and fifteenth on the month)
PatriotPete on April 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Pizza Hut says no guns at work, employee broke the rule. Employee gets fired. I don’t see what the issue is here. If I break my company rules I get fired, regardless of whether the activities in question are legal or not.
It is a company rule to wear a shirt to work…not a NY state law.
It is a company rule not to drink (too much) at work…not against the law in NY.
It is a company rule not to bust in on a client meeting and sing the opening number in Jesus Christ Superstar. Phantom might be illegal in NY, but not JCS.
The fact that it is a second amendment right here should not cloud the issue.
Pizza Hut set up rules and regulations, the man did not follow these and was dismissed. Your personal politics should not enter into it.
beefytee on April 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM
I would boycott Pizza Hut but I stopped eating their pizza years ago simply because their pizza tastes like cardboard.
sleepy-beans on April 3, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Pizza Huts in Europe are so much better than they are in the US.
beefytee on April 3, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Praise Jesus! A voice of reason!
Pcoop on April 3, 2008 at 12:49 PM
No, you’re thinking Dominos. Pizza Hut is a laxative with tomato sauce.
Pcoop on April 3, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Since I’ve been back in Philadelphia, Jun 03, there’s a couple of delivery guy murders a year. They don’t just take the money, they at least beat the crap out of the driver or just shoot first. You’re dealing with savages out there.
John Cunningham on April 3, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Guns come with an arseload of liability, which requires a whole lot of vetting, training, and plausible deniability of liability. This is why bonded security guards get paid more than non-bonded security guards, and why armored car drivers get paid more than pizza delivery drivers.
A big pizza corporation has deep enough pockets to give any lawyer wet dreams. If the company looks the other way on guns, or “strongly suggests” carrying them, but does not require them, that gun can become equipment necessary for the safety and health of the employee that the company allowed the use of, but did not require.
What if your delivery driver misses the thuglet trying to rob him and hits an innocent bystander while wearing your uniform? What if your delivery driver by day knocks over liquor stores by night with the gun you required him to buy? Yup, you’d be on the hook for that too.
Furthermore, what it takes to have a permit to carry a gun legally on your person is more or less what it would take to become a bonded security officer. Not only may your company have to pay for that training in some states (and pizza corporations span multiple states), but they would have to pay pizza drivers wages competitive with bonded security officers. How much do you really want to pay for what is supposed to be cheap pizza?
Sekhmet on April 3, 2008 at 1:21 PM
now im starving for pizza… and beer
Drunk Report on April 3, 2008 at 1:59 PM
All this debate over the right to carry…has anyone mentioned that Pizza Hut (and Taco Bell) are just like Progressive? IOW, they are run by big-time Lefties who donate to all those Soros-funded organizations?
Just curious…that may explain their reaction to this situation.
Miss_Anthrope on April 3, 2008 at 2:42 PM
That’s relevant why?
Pcoop on April 3, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Why not?
It’s their right to set the policy.
It’s our right to object to the policy.
Why do you imagine that the right of a company to set policy supersedes the right of the public to call the policy dangerous idiocy — especially if, as in this case, it is dangerous idiocy?
philwynk on April 3, 2008 at 3:35 PM
It’s their right to set policy for their company. It’s our right to call the policy sheer, dangerous foolishness.
Stop with the rights already. Nobody is saying that they don’t have a right to set policy. Everybody is saying this particular policy is madness, and should be reversed.
Liberals whine about “free speech” when somebody points out how loathsome their comments were, but pointing out loathsome remarks does not endanger free speech. Likewise, pointing out bad policy does not endanger liberty to set policy. The fact that a company (or person) has a right, does not make every execution of that right immune from criticism. Some policies, like this one, are just bad, and deserve comment.
philwynk on April 3, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Pcoop on April 3, 2008 at 3:21 PM
A frame of reference.
Johan Klaus on April 3, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Just say no to Pizza Hut Pizza.
JellyToast on April 3, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »