It Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use: Dominos Driver Rape Edition

dominos

“It is unthinkable that something like this could happen to an innocent woman, simply trying to earn a living.” Really? That’s Domino’s spokesman Tim McIntyre talking about the weekend’s broad daylight rape of a 22-year-old delivery woman in Antioch, California. Tim must be really busy, because it’s actually not that unthinkable. If he had the time to explore the wonder that is Google, he’d find no shortage of robberies, assaults and rapes of the pizza purveyor’s drivers . . .

From sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com:

The woman was making the delivery on the 2800 block of Bluebell Circle at 11:20 a.m. when an armed 17-year-old male forced her back into her delivery car, Sgt. Dimitri Barakos told KPIX 5. The suspect forced her to drive to an undisclosed area where he raped her, Sgt. Barakos said. He fled the car on foot taking some of the victim’s personal property.

The perp made the local 5-0’s job easy by returning to the address from which he’d ordered the pizza in the first place.

Domino’s policy, and that of most of its fanchisees, is to prohibit drivers from carrying firearms or other means of armed self defense. So it really isn’t all that “unthinkable” that their delivery people, and those of other companies, would sometimes fall prey to predators. What is unthinkable is defying their insurers and allowing their employees to protect themselves as they go about their appointed rounds without fear of losing their jobs. Oh no they won’t.

 

comments

  1. avatar Red in Texas says:

    california’s firearms policy would trump Domino’s anyway.

    1. avatar JoshuaS says:

      It is true that no firearm signs do not have the force of law with respect to CCW here, is that what you mean? If you can get a CCW that is.

      But you don’t need a CCW to carry at your home or place of business, and the courts have ruled, for example, that Taxi cab drivers are in their “place of business” in the taxi cab and hence do not need a CCW.

      People v. Marotta (“Defendant appeals the conviction, asserting the same issue he presented to the trial court: that he was entitled to keep the pistol in his “place of business”-his taxicab-under the provisions of Penal Code section 25850, subdivision (h). We agree with defendant’s contention and reverse the conviction.”)

      Though an earlier court case, People v. Wooten, could be contrary precedent. There the same appellate court ruled that a bounty hunter could not claim his pickup as a place of business and extended the logic in a way that appears contrary to the later ruling People v. Marotta. The ruling about taxis though was after the law about carrying in a business was changed by the legislature to clarify the intent to permit, e.g., those behind the counter of a store to have a gun (this was the 90’s when some pro-self defense legislation was possible)

      So it is possible to argue that they could be allowed to carry without a CCW, and in anycase if they had a CCW no legal prohibition could apply even inside the store, let alone in your own car.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        I think you are correct JoshuaS. Hopefully MarkN will address this. He knows California Firearms Law very well. However, what you said does seem correct. Company Policy or not, I would carry with or without a CCW in California if I was out delivering Pizza, particularly in some areas. Don’t know if a Pizza Delivery person makes enough money to own a good carry gun, but they do get tips (at least from me).

      2. avatar S.CROCK says:

        @JoshuaS
        “Taxi cab drivers are in their “place of business” in the taxi cab and hence do not need a CCW.”

        So if a taxi driver is carrying, then goes into a gas station to get some snacks whats the deal? They are still on the job but not technically in their place of business.

        1. avatar trob6969 says:

          I guess he’d have to leave it in the taxi whenever he steps out.

      3. avatar neiowa says:

        That is a very interesting theory. I wonder if being a contractor ( drivers are contractors in the eyes of the IRS) vs being a W2 hourly/salary employee would be a factor in the eyes of the court. Most Pizza drivers are hourly.

      4. avatar Tommycat says:

        I made it a habit of keeping a firearm in my vehicle when delivering. Dominos could tell me not to carry on their property, they cannot tell me not to have a firearm in my vehicle.

  2. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    God, I hate some of the laws in this country…. If an employer allows its employees to carry firearms and somebody gets hurt because of it, the employer can be sued. But the reverse is not true. If somebody is hurt because company policy forbade them from carrying, they can’t sue the employer.

    As much as it pains me to say it, it’s not fair to fault Domino’s for this. With corporations, it all comes down to the bottom line (as it should). This (and all the similar incidents) are the fault of the lawmakers.

    Also, slightly unrelated, what about car carry? Given that pizza delivery people are almost always required to drive their own vehicles, could an employer fire them for “breach of policy” by having a gun in their car (assuming that their having a gun in the car doesn’t violate any laws)? If the vehicle is a piece of personal property being used on the job, could the employer dictate what can and can’t be done in that privately-owned vehicle? I’m genuinely curious now. Anyone have a definitive answer for me?

    1. avatar TheBear says:

      I’d rather be fired than raped or dead.

      Corporate policy doesn’t affect anything but your job.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Agreed. Better to be fired by one than to be carried by six.

      2. avatar Jake Tallman says:

        I couldn’t agree more, but my question still stands.

        1. avatar JasonMfromSoDakota says:

          “As much as it pains me to say it, it’s not fair to fault Domino’s for this. With corporations, it all comes down to the bottom line (as it should). “–No- is the definitive answer. If you are using that vehicle for business purposes the company is liable for a gunfight. It is the same as not having a gun in your car on company property. Bottom line before the life of an employee is the corporate way and legally accepted way in a nation of greedy cowards. An employee would have to choose to be an American citizen by exercising their second amendment, or sacrifice those God given rights to be the indentured servant of the corporation. Servants not Citizens is what corporations need since servants sacrifice personal liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, because these individual liberties are not inclusive under the corporations governing principles of making money, not making better men.

          You admit that the point of corporations is to make money no matter the moral cost, and even if that violates a citizen’s right, which is a major grievance that is awakening Christian Whites to the fact we no longer live in a moral nation, which our Constitutional Law is dependent upon. Thankfully Americans who are Christian will not go the way of the European Jew by accepting the persecution that is being forced upon us by our own countrymen, because Americans not bound by the Rules of Engagement are the world’s most armed and feared warriors, which is why all lawmakers want us disarmed, because WE can effectively and efficiently disrupt their monopoly of force

        2. avatar JasonMfromSoDakota says:

          Correction , sorry Jake I misread your question about granting a corporation all control over you, so Yes the corporation can fire you for protecting yourself as you are violating company policy. I answered the more important part of your question about a free man choosing to be a serf or a citizen. You always have a choice to make in this life, and if you are armed that opens your options of who you can choose not to surrender your personal liberty to.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      “This (and all the similar incidents) are the fault of the lawmakers.” Who elected the lawmakers?
      It’s all very simple, you see. If we voters thought about the issue carefully then we would actively balance the interests of the parties involved: employer; employee; perpetrator; and, innocent bystanders. We might decide, for example, that each individual has a right to self-defense.
      In acting in self-defense, we must consider whether the employee is acting primarily on his own account or that of his employer. Arguably, an armed guard at a nuclear power plant is acting primarily on behalf of his employer. But for the employer’s interest in defending its property, he wouldn’t be there. Conversely, do we think the pizza delivery girl is primarily there to defend the pizza or the revenue of the previous delivery? Is it not more reasonable to conclude that she is primarily concerned with her life?
      It seems to me that when the employee is not required – as a condition of employment – to be armed while carrying out his duties that his use-of-arms ought to be presumed to be in exercise of self-interest rather than the employer’s interest. As such, the employer ought to be exempt from liability for error in the armed individual’s judgement.
      Some such reasoning ought to prevail in the legislature of a free State. Once so established, it might spread to other free States. It’s up to We the People to make this happen over the objections of the tort bar and insurance companies. Who knows, we might enjoy the support of the Chamber of Commerce.

      1. avatar gemalo says:

        Some such reasoning ought to prevail in the legislature of a free State. Once so established, it might spread to other free States.
        Problem is, California is not free. The cereal state; fruits, nuts, and flakes.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          I never suggested CA (nor NY, MD, NJ, MA, CT, RI . . .) was free. No, that’s not how freedom sprouts. How about if AZ citizens began to think trough this issue of employer liability? Suppose one such freedom-loving State took the lead; well, then, maybe TX would follow. If we could get voters in a State with fertile ground to think about this issue then maybe a law would change in that one State. From there, it might grow.

      2. avatar Accur81 says:

        Well said, sir.

      3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Well argued. And you might get the support of your local pols. At the state and federal level, due to the two-party lock and the almost impossibility of getting elected without the support of one money machine or the other, it’s harder. Most of them will act to keep the status quo, regardless of what they say on the campaign trail. As the guys who write South Park so eloquently state, “It’s always a choice between a douche and a turd.”

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          I’m not a lawyer; nevertheless, I’m pretty sure that this subject falls within tort law and that tort law is essentially a State issue, not a Federal issue. Therefore, if any State saw fit to adopt a law that changed the liability of employers for the gun acts of their employees under some prescribed circumstances then I don’t think there is anything that Congress could – or would – do about it.

      4. avatar Jake Tallman says:

        Very well said, and I completely agree. So many issues arise from the combination of everybody being legally liable for everything and the death of personal responsibility.

    3. avatar N8thecowboy says:

      Yes they could. Domino’s Pizza has a number of rules about your car. Not limited to how much money you carry, smoking while delivering, listening to loud music, and cleanliness of your car. As you can imagine a bunch of the rules are broken on any given day, but technically they would be a violation of company policy. They never actually searched my car, but they had one of my coworkers open his wallet and he got written up for having too much money. (that was never a problem for me!) I’m sure if they discovered a firearm in your car while on the clock you would be fired. I worked at Domino’s for 10 years, but I worked at a franchise store and had a very lenient boss.

      1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

        Ok, thanks.

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “As much as it pains me to say it, it’s not fair to fault Domino’s for this. With corporations, it all comes down to the bottom line (as it should).”

      In a moral, ethical, and honorable vacuum where human dignity and life are intrinsically worthless, I would agree.

      Hopefully, everyone agrees that corporations do not operate in a moral, ethical, and honorable vacuum where human dignity and life are intrinsically worthless. And many aspects of modern law reflect that. (Corporations cannot legally operate dangerous environments such as paint booths without providing respiration equipment for example.)

      Therefore, it is wrong and should be illegal for corporations to demand that employees be unarmed in almost every case. About the only exception I can imagine off the top of my head would be something like a chemical refinery where shooting a firearm is virtually guaranteed to cause significant harm to the employee, fellow employees, and patrons.

    5. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Certainly it is not Domino’s fault, it is not their decision. It is statists playing the long game who put laws into effect which eventually are intended to eliminate RKBA. Seeing to it that RKBA is completely worthless, by assuring that any use of arms is prosecuted under some law, or you’re fired, or you’re sued within an inch of your life, all those laws have been passed for a reason. And we let them be passed, often because they sounded reasonable to us as well, until “interpreted” after passage. “Infringed” has a clear meaning, we need to insist that it be understood. NO MORE GUN CONTROL LAWS. PERIOD! The only thing standing between us and Eric Holder as a Supreme Court Justice for the next 40 years is our votes in the 2012 election. Don’t let them be forgotten, no matter how many phone calls or emails it takes.

    6. avatar arsh says:

      This is why more states should follow what WI passed for law which is basically you as an employer can refuse to allow your employees to carry guns, but if they’re injured because you didn’t allow them to protect themselves then you’re more liable. If this happened in WI this lady could sue the ever living crap out of Dominos.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Arsh, could you please elaborate on WI’s statute? Seems like WI’s legislature has taken one step in the right direction: i.e., reconsidering the liability of the employer for the employer’s decision to disarm his employees as a consequence of which, the employee might be injured by an assailant. This seems to be directed at the Workman’s Comp law which generally lightens the employer’s responsibility for the worker’s exposure to hazards on the job. Slip and fall, make a worker’s comp claim. Get shot by a robber after the business’s cash, make a worker’s comp claim.
        I had focused only on the employer’s liability for the harm caused by an armed employee. A perpetrator might sue on a claim of excessive force (or some such theory). An employee might honestly – but mistakenly – apprehend a patron’s threat of death or grave bodily harm and defend himself. If the employer is responsible for the employee’s mistake, that is a terrible liability on the employer. In defending himself against an undisputed threat the employee might injure an innocent bystander. This too is a terrible liability on the employer and one which fits well under the usual interpretation of employer responsibility.
        My guess is that the employer’s liability to third parties is a far greater concern than the employer’s liability to his employee. WI’s law – shifting some liability to the employer for injuries to the employee – might help somewhat; however, I doubt that it tips the balance.

  3. avatar Art out West says:

    Domino’s as implicated by it’s spokesman Tim McIntyre is totally irresponsible. They rob their employees of the ability to protect themselves, and then send them out into dangerous situations. They then have the audacity to feign shock and horror when their employees are robbed, attacked, raped, and/or murdered. Shame on Domino’s, and all employers who disarm their employees. Obviously the criminal is responsible for his actions, yet Dominos also bears moral guilt in the fact that they disarm people, creating victims.

    Shame on California as well, for treating it’s citizens the same way Dominos treats their employees.

    It is a good thing that that criminal was so stupid. At least he got caught. He should have been shot.

  4. avatar Kendahl says:

    Unthinkable? Only for those who can’t or won’t think. In my city, three teenagers lured a pizza delivery guy to a vacant apartment. Not content with robbery, one of them, 15 years old, stabbed him to death.

  5. avatar Chase says:

    Used to be a day where people would have a barbecue, but not anymore, because men are no longer men.

  6. avatar fishydude says:

    And if Dominoes just decided not to deliver to bad neighborhoods with high rates of driver attacks, the DOJ, AlQeada Sharpton, and ACLU would come down on them so fast with multi-million dollar discrimination law suits.
    “Unthinkable” is not the word I would use. “Predictable.” “Expected.” “Avoidable” maybe.
    They advertised in multiple national news stories that the drivers are sitting ducks. What did they expect?

  7. avatar ToddR says:

    If my circumstances forced me to deliver pizza to make ends meet, I am sure that 1) I would carry, 2) no one would ever know that I carry, and 3) if I ever needed to draw, I would probably not care about losing my job.

    1. avatar What about Bob says:

      Exactly.

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    I once had a seasonal job working for a company that banned employees from carrying weapons at work. I had just finished reading the relevant section in the employee handbook when a supervisor handed me a box cutter.

    I always carried my gun on the job. And my box cutter.

  9. avatar RetroG says:

    My son delivers for Domino’s to make money for college. Until he graduates or Arizona State University changes their policies on guns on campus (or is forced to by the state), he doesn’t have anywhere to store his handgun except in his truck (which isn’t parked in a secure locale). So he can’t carry a gun while on campus or while delivering. He does have a large, sharp, tool for opening packages, that he carries on his person at all times.

    1. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

      You can open the s#!t out of a package with a tactical tomahawk.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      One good place to store your firearm would be an IWB holster, with a tucked shirt over it! Esp. in AZ, for goodness sake!

      1. avatar DonS says:

        I realize the OP didn’t give his son’s age, but it has been my experience that most college undergrads are under age 21.

        Don’t you have to be 21 to carry a handgun in Arizona?

        1. avatar DonS says:

          Concealed, that is.

          The minimum age for open carry seems to be 18.

        2. avatar RetroG says:

          He is over 21, and in AZ you can carry concealed or open without a permit. The rub is that ASU does not allow weapons on campus, and will expel you for violating that rule. He lives on campus, so he can’t technically have a gun on him while attending classes, in his dorm room or on most of his deliveries. Would I prefer he carry? Absolutely. But circumstances dictate otherwise. Realistically, he is well over 6 foot and 250 lbs and knows his life is more important than money or pizzas, so he’s probably safe. But I worry, still.

        3. avatar DonS says:

          “He is over 21, and in AZ you can carry concealed or open without a permit.”

          Understood that your son isn’t impacted, but for concealed carry in Arizona (whether permitless, AZ permit, or out-of-state permit) you must be 21. ARS 13-3102 and 13-3112

          I only brought this up because concealed carry by a college student had been suggested, the age of the student had not yet been mentioned, and most college students in the USA are under age 21. https://www.census.gov/hhes/school/data/cps/historical/

  10. avatar Tom W. says:

    How about non-lethal devices? I’m curious if it would pertain to pepper spray or stun gun in the policy of Domino’s.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Don’t ask, don’t tell!

    2. avatar Pieslapper says:

      Those are against company policy as well.

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “What is unthinkable is defying their insurers and allowing their employees to protect themselves as they go about …”

    We need to challenge this notion that insurance carriers will somehow increase their prices if employers allow their employees to be armed on the job. While there may be an increase of risk of armed employees harming bystanders, there is a decrease of risk of armed employees suffering serious injuries from attackers.

    If an armed employee harms a bystander, sure, the bystander will sue the employer for a bunch of money. Likewise, if an employee is seriously injured or killed on the job, they will sue the employer for a bunch of money. Either way, the employer’s insurance company is going to pay out. The only question is which is going to happen more frequently? I think the answer is obvious. Armed good guys, from a statistical standpoint, never harm bystanders. Attackers, from a statistical standpoint, frequently harm unarmed victims and rarely cause serious injuries to armed victims. Thus, an insurance company has a higher probability of saving money (paying out less) if employees are armed. That should result in lower premiums, not higher premiums.

  12. avatar Hannibal says:

    Even without a gun:
    Don’t let him get you into a car with you.
    Don’t get driven\drive to some out-of-the-way location.

    This girl is lucky she made it out alive. I wonder if anyone taught her advice about what to do with situations like this the way Mayor ‘Deblasio’ Wilhelm teaches his biracial son about police.

  13. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    It’s a crappy job. Carry something and protect yourself. Robberies and murders in nearby Chicago and southern suburbs. And in Dolton,Illinois the pizza guy only had $20…personally I have never had a female pizza driver bring me a pizza. You can get another crummy job. You can’t replace your life…

  14. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Yet another person forfeited their rights and paid the price. Carry every day. Carry everywhere. Don’t compromise so easily, people.

  15. avatar DerryM says:

    Dominoes ought to be held liable for sending an unarmed 22 year old woman out to deliver Pizza, not to mention THEIR crappy Pizza! Goes to show what happens to a disarmed populous…hope she recovers as best she can from the violation.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email