Armed store clerks?

[Jake7]

I'd have to agree with arming them, with safety courses if you work past a certain hour (probably just in darkness.)

[havasu]

Unfortunately, the cost of paying a lawsuit for an unnecessary death by an employee far outweighs the cost to bury an $8.00 per hour employee. It all comes down to dollars and cents (sense!). Pretty sad situation IMHO!

[Bamataco]

Originally Posted by havasu

Unfortunately, the cost of paying a lawsuit for an unnecessary death by an employee far outweighs the cost to bury an $8.00 per hour employee. It all comes down to dollars and cents (sense!). Pretty sad situation IMHO!

If by chance some unfortuate family of an employee sue's the company, it just might start a trend were other families sue. And then it just might reverse corporate thinking.

[Jake7]

Does this happen very often? I haven't read about someone being hurt in one of these robberies in a while.

[havasu]

Originally Posted by Bamataco

If by chance some unfortuate family of an employee sue's the company, it just might start a trend were other families sue. And then it just might reverse corporate thinking.

Don't quote me, but I believe it would be considered as a frivilous lawsuit. Sure, anyboby can sue anyone for anything these days, but nobody forced the employee to take a job where violence could and does occur.

It does bring up a good point. I know of three convience store clerks who were killed in my area, and wonder what the store pays the family of the employee who was killed?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by havasu

Sure, anyboby can sue anyone for anything these days, but nobody forced the employee to take a job where violence could and does occur.

Certainly, some jobs are more risky than others, and manning a 7-11 in a questionable area at night is more risky than working at Macy's in a posh suburban mall during the day. But even so, I'd like to see employees armed and trained. If we fear law suits more than we respect life, we're pretty screwed as a society.

Side note: there was a shooting at Xerox where I work a few years back. One guy came into the credit union, demanded money, shot one guy in the head and killed him and shot another in the shoulder (he lived). There's no reason to believe the murderer worked at Xerox since anyone could have walked right in.

Xerox's solution to this was to post "Gun Free Zone" signs at every entrance to every building. So rather than do something that maybe would have made sense, like solicit employee volunteers with CCW permits to take some training from cops on how to react in a situation like what happened in the credit union, they instead chose to ban firearms outright; if you have a weapon in a Xerox facility you're very likely to be fired on the spot.

[YelloJeep]

Originally Posted by Brian

......Xerox's solution to this was to post "Gun Free Zone" signs at every entrance to every building. ...... if you have a weapon in a Xerox facility you're very likely to be fired on the spot.

Might as well be a sign saying: "Come on in...take what you like...we can't fight back anyway."

[azvoiceman]

Going back to the prevention issue, think back to the days where car-jacking was new and and quickly becoming all the rage. Lawmakers stepped in and set mandatory 30 year penalties and now how often do you hear of a car-jacking?

Once the criminal element realizes that robbing certain establishments is more often than not going to end up in a gun battle by trained and armed employees I think they may start looking at other enterprises.

As someone else stated earlier we are not using the death penalty often enough, I agree and would like to see more of us encouraging our lawmakers to push for legislation for that in a wide variety of crimes.

When the thugs realize we are no longer mucking around and mean business, we might just have a safer Country.

[YelloJeep]

Definitely, the death penalty is not used enough.

[Bamataco]

Originally Posted by YelloJeep

Definitely, the death penalty is not used enough.

And not only that but it takes way to long for the execution to actually occure.
If the accussed criminal has a right to a speedy trial,then why doesn't the family of the dead person have a right to a speedy execustion?