By Winston Orwell
I spoke with a young friend today who related to me the tale of his first DGU, which happened just last night. He’s 26, a pizza delivery driver and a CCW holder who believes that he should never be unarmed unless he has to be. I’m proud that I was able to help him get his permit; he’s truly one of the good guys. It seems that last evening he had a minor disagreement with a co-worker . . .
It was a workplace tiff that he thought was both minor and over. Later that night he took a delivery to an apartment block and encountered the antagonist from work. He delivered his pizza, but as he was leaving the antagonist entered his path and mirrored his movements, blocking his way while uttering obscenities and eventually a death threat; “I’ll end you!” he said.
My friend was blocked from the parking lot where his vehicle waited and no amount of side-stepping or informing the fellow that he didn’t want trouble was working. Finally, he charged past the aggressor to one side, brushing past his shoulder. As he passed, the man turned and struck him in the side of the face with enough force to rapidly raise noticeable welt.
My friend said that his reaction was pure training and instinct. He dodged back throwing out his weak hand to create/maintain distance and drew his pistol, an XDs-9 from concealment, keeping it close to his body but visible to his attacker.
The attacker raised his hands as if in surrender, muttered, turned and left, allowing my friend to reach his vehicle and leave. He went back to the pizza shop, calling police along the way. They met him there. He states that the police had no issue with his drawing his gun, photographed his injuries and took his statement, then went looking for the attacker. A good DGU, no one got shot, an innocent man walked away with his life, his gun and his rights intact and the bad guy is a wanted man.
There is just one problem. This morning they fired my friend for carrying a firearm in violation of company policy. He knew that would happen, expected it, and would be fine with it, if only they had also fired the other employee who assaulted him. But they didn’t.
Their logic was that my friend’s carrying of a weapon was a greater violation of company policy than the other employee’s assault. My friend isn’t interested in working there anymore, but he is interested in the small justice that would be firing the other employee who both assaulted him and caused him to reveal his concealed carry, costing him his job.
My friend would rather not reveal the name of his employer at this time until the issue is fully resolved, but it’s a corporation with franchises and one that quite a few people may recognize. I’ll be the first to update on the eventual outcome of the incident. As it is, an innocent man is out of a job because he defended himself from a violent assault by a co-worker. Perhaps it’s time for a law preventing employers from discriminating based on armed status. Perhaps that’s too much. Either way, this good guy got a raw deal. At least he’s alive and in good enough shape to take another job. Carry on.
Wow. Best of luck to him.
The other employee should definitely be fired. Sorry to here about your friend being out of a job, Winston. Happy to hear he’s okay.
Not JUST fired. He should be arrested for simple assault. The pizza guy was struck and the temporary injury documented by responding cops.
I’m no lawyer, but I would raise hell about not terminating the attacker. Good for your friend for defending himself appropriately, and I am glad to hear that the police recognized that your friend handled this situation correctly.
I’m going to guess they couldn’t, or wouldn’t fire him because the event did not take place on company property, just a guess.
I would assume that they will fire the assailant once he goes to jail and can no longer come to work.
Probably, since he’s not a Fed worker or a politician.
Then it’s discrimination because the DGU wasn’t at the shop either.
Yes that makes perfect sense dumbass. An employer should not be at all concerned about what their employees are doing while they are working. /s
One person admits to breaking company policy. The other is alleged to have committed a crime that had very little to do with their work. Where’s the discrimination?
Was the attacker on the clock?
We need the company name… or is this the HuffPost?.
Agreed on revealing the company name. A pizza franchise that clearly has no value for their employees lives is no pizza franchise of mine.
Yup. Whoever they are they’ll never be getting my business ever again. And I’ll spread the word.
Ditto on that here as well. As soon as I find out what company pulled that crap, they will cease to get my business and they will be getting a letter to that effect, as well as notification that I will be spreading their poor conduct in not firing the other employee to as many people as possible.
That reminds me of the book “Monster Hunter International” by Larry Correia.
Main character is attacked by a werewolf at his workplace, pulls a revolver (which doesn’t work), and kills the werewolf by shoving it out a window. He receives a lovely bundle of flowers and a get well soon card from HR informing him he has been terminated for violating the no weapons policy.
All hail the International Lord of Hate.
I love the opening lines of the first book:
On one otherwise normal Tuesday evening I had the chance to live the American dream. I was able to throw my incompetent jackass of a boss from a fourteenth-story window.
Love the MH series and the Dead Six books. Haven’t been able to get into the Grimnoirs, though.
Yep that’s an entertaining book. 🙂
I would rather like to know the company as I would rather not pay for any pizza from them again.
With the big national chains, individual stores are a mix of corporate owned stores and francises. Why punish your local franchisee for what some other buiness related only by a marketing plan did? Why not inundate the actual store involved with polite messages of support for the DGU guy and expressions of displeasure with the continued employment of the aggressor?
I’d like to see a bulletin board somewhere that would list businesses that are Anti-:
– baring employees from working armed or parking cars in their lots with guns;
– firing employees who defend themselves;
– bar customers bearing arms
If it’s Mom & Pop’s Pizza, then it’s easy enough. If it is a chain company that owns its own stores (branches) then that is easy enough as well.
If it is a franchise network then it will be more work. The maintainer of the bulletin board will need to find out if the policies are network-wide or applicable only to the company-owned stores or franchisees as well. If the franchise owners are free to make their own decisions then the maintainer will need to figure-out how to list the franchisees that welcome guns and carve-them-out. E.g., list MacDonuts as a banning chain excepting 123 Main St. Sometown XX welcomes guns.
Now, it could be that in the State of XX, a business must erect a No-Guns sign; else, they are guns-allowed by default. It could be that the franchisee at 123 Main St. doesn’t bar guns but doesn’t want to put out a welcome mat either. Where this is the case, the listing would be: MacDonuts except for stores in the State of XX unless specifically signed “No-Guns”.
I don’t know of any such board that’s national in scope, or even necessarily comprehensive for the state(s) covered. However, one for Texas I do know of is Texas3006.com, which lists reader-supplied 30.06 locations and 51% locations.
30.06 is the number of the state code section defining the official “no guns” sign that carries the force of law, which property owners may voluntarily post. It’s also a play on words (numbers?) with the venerable rifle cartridge, which is cute. 51% signs are those required to be posted by establishments which derive more than half of their revenue from the sale of alcohol for on-site consumption (bars, lounges, etc.), where concealed carry is banned by state law.
Yep; I delivered pizza way back when; it’s where I had my first mugging attempt; and when I started carrying concealed. The company was an independent; the owner supported the drivers in defending themselves from muggers. We would go into areas called the “war zone” cops wouldn’t go without backup. In the end; it was a blessing; I might not have woken up to the lies of the liberal/proggressives without almost being severely injured or killed by the mugger.
A conservative is a liberal that had a mugging attempt.
Name the employer. This is a ridiculous situation – an employee who committed a crime (assault) keeps his job while an employee who committed no crime loses his?
Name them. I don’t want to buy pizza from them.
This article might provide a clue. But, I don’t know for sure.
I find it shocking that as public a GOP’er John Schnatter is (Papa John’s founder), that he would restrict his employees from carrying the way he does.
It is probably a condition of their liability insurer …
Yeah, I’m sure you’re right.
Still, check out John’s house. And I say to him, “Take one for the team, man.”
Agreed on revealing the company name, they f^cked up, let them pay
The anti crowd would argue that this is another instance of someone bringing a gun to what should have been a good ol’ fashioned incident of fisticuffs. Nobody needs a gun! Be a man, have a brawl, shake hands when it is all over and go have a beer. Because that’s real life…
Meanwhile, this is the same crowd that files assault charges if you so much as press a finger to their chest during an argument.
I wonder — would any one of them still consider it a good ol’ fashioned incident of fisticuffs if someone beat the shit out of them?
It always makes me laugh when some pantywaist, who would sh1t their Underoos if someone yelled at them, tells anyone to “man up.”
I always want to ask if they’ve really been in a nasty fight. Not some stupid sibling thing where you knock one another down and its done, but the sort of fight that leaves you hurting for 3-4 days, with bruises all over your body and a bloody face.
It’s not “just a little fistfight” unless the other person’s inept and/or not really wanting to hurt you.
Here’s something the left never considers. Many people like me are on blood thinners. A few well placed blows to the face and head from an attacker, and bleeding to death is a very real possibility. Even without blood thinners, the human body is much weaker than the movies portray. Being a former military LEO, someone who took some very interesting martial arts classes in my younger years, and someone who pays attention a bit more than the average bear, I have learned that killing someone with nothing more than your body is scary easy, both on purpose with some knowledge and by accident. Although the courts typically do not consider hand-to-hand fighting as deadly force, they ought to.
we’ll just have to ban all pizza
Well, not pepperoni. You just cannot have a pizza that can hold more than 10 pepperoni slices, and you cannot carry it out of the store unless it contains no more than 7 pepperoni slices even though the pizza can hold 10. You are exempt from these rules if you are a license pizza delivery driver employed by a government owned restaurant, for pizza delivery drivers are the only ones who can handle pizza’s responsibly.
Here’s another request for the name of the pizza franchise involved in this travesty of fairness, so that I can make known my displeasure by 1) writing a letter to their management, and 2) taking my pizza-buying business elsewhere.
Agreed. I will not do business with a company that fires an employee for justifiably defending himself. Give us the name so we can tell that company exactly how we feel about their practices & take our business elsewhere.
I’m with you. I’m going to write a letter in disgust.
wait for the jump……..
Maybe a pending lawsuit is keeping the name from being revealed…………….
Two Words: LAWSUIT HOMEY.
This is like a settlement dream… easy $25, $50, $75K EASY, maybe a couple hundred if he gets a go getter lawyer. Losing your job when you were defending yourself FROM AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SAME COMPANY , In a lawful manner, and being discriminated in the workplace while they don’t do anything to the criminal employee. This is totally winnable.
See that’s the thing, I’m fully aware companies can ban guns on their own property (i.e. in the building) but companies cannot tell you whether or not you can carry in public areas, on the clock or not. Even more so if the employee is using their own car to make the deliveries. This should be an easy case.
Employment “at will.” An employer can fire an employee at any time and for any reason or no reason (but not for an illegal reason, like race or religion).
Under the at will doctrine, your employer can fire you because he doesn’t like the way you lick stamps and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Or give her a raise because of the way she licks stamps…
they always say that about “at will” work places…all i know is i work for an “at will” employer and they still take like 12-18 months to document someone before they fire them…
no business wants to go in front of a jury for a wrongful termination lawsuit. all it takes is the right judge/jury..
Yes, they can fire you for any reason, but not if they admit to firing you for something protected by the law. That’s illegal. I would suggest this ex-employee talks to a lawyer to find out what he can do.
Do you see anywhere in the article where it states “at will???” You see, not all states are “at will.”
Ralph What this country needs is a good legal smackdown of a company (or individual) for attempting to deprive, by coercion, and individual of their 2nd Amendment Rights.. No Right to Work/fire.
In a word, No. I worked for Pizza Hut for several years as a driver. I carried all the time and so did almost every other driver I knew. Some of us had to draw on occasion. On those occasions, most would not call the cops if they could. Why? Because we were fully aware that we would lose our jobs over some low life who wanted to injure us and steal our cash (and, in two separate instances, the driver’s vehicle). This is a case where an assault took place, so calling the police was kind of required. At that point, as a driver, you just have to accept that you are going to get fired. I know it sucks, but the Feds already have too much control of forcing private business to do what the Feds want. Another law will just be further twisted to screw over some small business owners down the road that the gov’t doesn’t like.
The best thing for your friend to do is press charges and see what happens.
As much as it pains me to say it, if the altercation happened while the offending employee was off the clock (and, I would imagine, off company property), the company has no obligation to fire him; however, because the fired employee had a gun while on the clock, the company had an obligation to fire him.
I’m not saying it’s fair, but that’s probably why it happened that way. And revealing the name here is, arguably, libel and slander, since the altercation, again, arguably, had nothing to do with the company (though it happened as a result of something at the workplace), but the misdeed of carrying the gun was.
Again… I’m not saying I agree. I’m vicariously angry for the friend, because that’s BS and he has every right to defend himself.
I don’t think they can claim libel or slander when what’s said is true, can they?
But yeah, sue the barstids and name them.
On the clock or not, how does that affect the employee out in public areas in their own car? This policy clearly violates federal and state laws for carrying (the person was licensed and did not commit a crime). Unless the state he lives clearly states that employer weapon policies can extend outside the confines of the business itself, he did no wrong.
“At will” employment. If you don’t know what it is, look it up. You won’t like it.
Yeah, I’m familiar with it…we have it in Texas.
What matters was that he was on company business, regardless whether he was on company property. Look at it from another angle. If a company hires a delivery driver, home repairman or someone else who works offsite, whom the company failed to background check and learn was a convicted sex offender, the company will likely be held liable when that employee then rapes someone while making a delivery to their home. Lawsuits like that happen every day and companies often lose/settle, despite the activity not having taken place on their own property.
At will doesn’t depend on location, company time or anything like that. If the reason for the firing isn’t itself illegal (like racial or religious discrimination), the employer can fire you. For example, you may be smokin’ that doobie on your own time, but if your employer doesn’t like it, you are gone.
The other half of “at will” is that it applies to the employee just as much. You can quit at any time and there’s nothing that the employer can do about it.
You’re right, Ralph. At will means at will. I was just trying to provide some context as to a company’s reasoning, so it doesn’t seem completely arbitrary; but you’re right, ultimately, their reason or lack of a reason does not matter so long as there isn’t a protected status at issue.
The company has an obligation to fire the attacker because he’s a known risk of violence. If he were getting DUI’s right and left, even off duty, they’d have to fire him for that, too, because when he finally does get in a wreck while on the clock and kills someone, the plaintiffs are going to say “See? He had a history of this behavior which you ignored and whuch would eventually be repeated on the job.” Companies would rather fire someone today than incur that exposure to what they may well do tomorrow.
No. The EEOC does not take kindly to firing dangerous drunks. http://dailysignal.com/2011/08/30/feds-to-trucking-company-you-cannot-fire-alcoholic-drivers/
I’ve thought about becoming a pizza guy. I hear the money as actually okay. My cousin delivered pizza until he was robbed at gunpoint.
I am NOT an attorney.
I would contact one to find out that my attacker only knew of me through my employer, and that this was an extension of “workplace violence”. Especially since at least one person was on duty at the time of the incident. I would see about bringing up a lawsuit against my attacker and former employer. There is a possibility that “damages” can be awarded for loss of income. Also, by keeping the person on staff who is a “known assailant”, they may no be liable for any future assaults by this employee. Not good if you are in the “customer service” business.
If or when the employee receives a conviction of assault, he might be terminated. Unfortunately, in this country, the criminal HAS more rights that the accuser or victim. The company may be waiting for this to work its way through the courts.
Best of luck for your friend.
Papa John’s has this policy,
Pizza Hut has this policy,
You should assume any national chain has this policy.
Some locally owned businesses may have it as well, that depends on where you live.
We had a local delivery driver badly injured but he managed to get shots off and defend himself. He was fired from that Pizza Hut. I would think most businesses have a similar policy these days. Mainly because company lawyers and insurers push the policy.
Just some food for thought…
Of course, because the mommies of the choir boys will sue their pants off.
As you stated, this is a common policy in most businesses, food related or otherwise. While I do not like these policies, in most cases you are made very much aware of it up front. It is what it is.
That is not the primary source of our outrage. The issue is with the fact that they declined to fire the employee that committed the assault, as well. Especially the way they worded their reasoning, as if the ‘bad behavior’ of the assaulted party somehow negated the assaulter’s illegal behavior. Regardless of whether he was on the clock or not, most companies have a “conduct unbecoming” type clause in the boilerplate. It also manages to ignore that the initial argument started on the clock, and the fact that THERE WAS NO WAY FOR HIM TO KNOW WHERE THE VICTIM WAS GOING TO BE DELIVERING WITHOUT USING HIS POSITION AS AN EMPLOYEE TO GATHER THAT INFO.
This type of conduct by a company may be within their rights under the law, but unless the corporate brass lays the smack down on the local store regarding the morally and ethically distasteful handling of the situation, the are equally culpable in it, and as such with not receive any further business from me.
I want to know which restaurant chain. I do not want to be a customer of a chain that willingly employs hotheads who have a reputation of starting fights that would assault me should I do something big like complain about bad service.
“As it is, an innocent man is out of a job because he defended himself from a violent assault by a co-worker.”
Um, no, he’s out of a job because he willfully violated a major company policy and term of employment which he had agreed to at the time of his hiring. Had there been no attack, he would still have been fired if his violation were discovered by any other means, including self-disclosure.
Had the attack ended with a fist fight instead of DGU, he would not have been fired. The proof? Even the attacker wasn’t fired for attacking him with his bare hands. They wouldn’t then fire the innocent defender for defending himself with his bare hands.
On that note, I call B.S. on that point (and doubt the entire story, actually). I don’t believe they didn’t fire the attacker, too. That sounds like sensationalism for dramatic storytelling effect. Why? Well, the primary purpose of such workplace no gun policies is to limit legal liability in the event someone gets hurt by use of a gun on employer premises or otherwise during employment activities. (It’s not meant actually to prevent any injury, as we all know.)
In that same area of employment law, companies are even more likely to face liability for the actions of employees, or their own failure to provide a safe workplace, when the risks are well known and prevention measures like termination are readily available. So it makes zero sense to keep a known attacker with a short fuse on the payroll. That would generate even more liability, when he attacks the next person over a minor flap, than that which they’re attempting to avoid by terminating the gun carrying employee.
+1, I really want to rally in defense of a concealed carrier exercising their rights. But, if no one is going on the record, this sounds like the typical anti claims that a gun owner spat on them or said something racist that turn out to be complete fabrications.
I agree. This is too simple and easy to jump to conclusions.
Unless someone else put the attacking co-worker at the scene, its hearsay, to the cops, and might not be enough to prosecute.
The employer can make a decision to fire as Ralph says on anything- but if the employee admits to carrying in violation of a company policy thats probably a huge liability for the company insurance policy, then he is gone. Or the company loses the insurance and establishes a precedent for future lawsuits against them, if some employee negligently discharges while carrying during work hours, or worse- can you imagine what would happen to the company if a worker went postal with his own weapon in the restaurant?
I’m not saying its morally right- I am talking about the current state of affairs in the US in terms of workplace law, insurance, etc. Its a business- the life of the delivery guy doesnt really figure in, under those considerations for the day to day operations and long term survival of the business, sadly.
Thank the lawyers, and politicians, who were mostly lawyers before they got to Congress.
So the employee who assaults people is still out delivering pizzas to the unsuspecting public? Can we have the pizza chain name and the specific store so people can make an informed decision avoid having to deal with this dangerous individual and the corporation that sponsors him… What is the point of even telling this story in public otherwise? To make you think twice before ordering a pizza? Hard to be irate about some anonymous pizza company based on an rumor by a friend of a friend. Are we even getting the full story?
+1 MarkPa & General Zod…make ’em PAY. Guy hit him and DIDN’T get fired?!?
Discrimination against gun owners is one of few legal discriminations left. Even the ACLU considers gun owners fair game.
This is why I don’t say anything about my gun ownership and competition sport. I mentioned it at one previous employer and it was one of the reasons why my employment was terminated at the end of the trial period.
It’s the new version of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
The fact that they fired him sucks and is pure BS.
It is much better for his safety if he becomes a fresh gray man, finds a new job where perpy has no clue where he works.
Meh, it’s a pizza job. The employer is just as disposable as the employee in this case, so good call on packing heat. Pick up a job at their competitors and carry on.
Zactly- First lesson learned, carrying concealed may have saved a serious beating, so by all means, carry if you must go to dangerous places. Better to be possibly fired from a crappy job, than be dead. You can always get another crappy job.
Second lesson learned- avoid shit head fellow employees and NEVER reveal you are carrying. If there was some minor misunderstanding- at work, then he should have elevated it to his manager, and let him and HR deal with the other guy.
I find it hard to believe this turd ball followed and confronted him, frankly. But even then he could have swallowed his pride and just gone the other way, and even run, then call the cops. Pulling the gun means someone might get shot and killed, and that should be the very last option. He is lucky he didnt have to shoot him, and be sued from jail, by the robber, or if dead, by his survivors, unless his self-defense defense is iron-tight- and in addtion to losing his job, lose his right to future earnings for some very long time…
not saying its right, but it happens all the time.
If you are going to CCW you have to be a model citizen, and follow the 3S.
Maybe get a different job…
Plenty of evidence that the SB shooting was a falseflag. This bill was written and waiting for the staged event. Indeed the purpose of this bill is to disarm the resistance. They had to accelerate the timeline because these two clown faced communists will soon be out of a job.
What SB shooting- Santa Barbara? Rodgers?
A false flag for which staged event?
The CA Gun Violence Restraining Order bill was seized upon, to rename something in work by CA rep Nancy Skinner, on mental health assessment and training for cops, who respond- and more money to mental health facilities.
That was moving thru committees, until the CA Dems renamed it, I suppose to capitalize on the media blood dancing, and the PBS station in San Fran naturally ran with it, even tho they are bragging on themselves as the number one station nationally in PBS, and presumeably have the interns or producers who can use google, too.
Fire a pizza man for carrying a gun, in the private sector, but in the public sector we can have the tax payers pay for a corrupt pol who was looking to get paid for running rpgs and assault weapons into the US, from muslim rebels in asia, with russian and chinese gang connections.
Cant have The Elites of “Those-Who-Know-Whats-Best-For-Us-Little-People forced to follow the same rules they invent or the plebians to follow, no matter what. And in the meantime, find some meat to throw to the dogs in the reliable enablers of the StateRunMedia.
The company wasn’t named because they may yet fire the other employee and because my friend asked me not to reveal the employers name until he’s had some time to think about it. Remember, he was telling me this less than 24 hours after he’d been assaulted, had to draw his gun, deal with the cops and lost his job. It’s still to early to tell what’s going to happen for sure, but I’ve been assisting him with contacting the parent company with regarding the situation. Also, there is still the possibility of a suit against the company.
The point in relating the incident wasn’t about the fact that he was fired or that his attacker hasn’t been at this time, those are mostly ancillary details and I had no real motive in including them. The point of telling the story was primarily about the fact that he defended himself with a gun against an unarmed attacker and prevailed under the law. No charges are being considered and the responding officers indicated that there was no chance they would be. I know I read DGU reports with an eye towards how law enforcement and prosecutors react to them, I offered this for that reason.
This incident took place in Kentucky for those who are interested.
Please Oh Please don’t be dominos
Dominos has the same no gun policy as all the others. I worked there during college and luckily my manager made it clear that we weren’t allowed to have weapons and that if I shot anyone not to let him know. As far as the other employee attacking the driver, even though he was off the clock, he was interfering with another employees job, which could be a terminable offense.
This is the nation we live in now. Be a responsible American, get punished. Pathetic.
I have a feeling it’s Papa John’s. They always seemed to go out of their way against guns.
Amazing, astounding website file format! The way prolonged were you writing a blog for? you are making posting search simple. The entire peek of your site is a plus, much less necessary Burlington Pizza . material!