Indy Kroger Employee Shoots Would-be Robber in the Face!

[mainjet]

I am going to take a stab in the dark and say that Kroger will land squarely in the middle on this one.

They will say that the employee violated company policy and therefore will be put on unpaid suspension for a period of time. He will also be firmly instructed that he is never to carry his gun in the store again. Furthermore, all Kroger employees will be reminded that they are not to have a firearm in their stores.

However, the company will say that the employee, while he did violate company policy, acted in defense of himself and the other employee from violent offender. Due to that he will not be fired.

There you go. The "Middle"...

 

[churchmouse]

When something like this happens, despite a good guy ridding the world of a career criminal (which is awesome), and the idiots come out of the woodwork with their retarded comments, it just makes me hate people even more.

I hate everyone equally until they prove to me I shouldn't. Then I usually find I was right in the first place. Most of these idiots would not feel this way if they had a gun in their back and feared for their lives.

 

[MickeyBlueEyes]

I WISH THIS KIND OF ACTION WAS TAKEN MORE OFTEN. 9 times out of 10, the people in the situation hesitate. Then, they get shot by the perp. It's despicable.

 

[churchmouse]

I am going to take a stab in the dark and say that Kroger will land squarely in the middle on this one.

They will say that the employee violated company policy and therefore will be put on unpaid suspension for a period of time. He will also be firmly instructed that he is never to carry his gun in the store again. Furthermore, all Kroger employees will be reminded that they are not to have a firearm in their stores.

However, the company will say that the employee, while he did violate company policy, acted in defense of himself and the other employee from violent offender. Due to that he will not be fired.

There you go. The "Middle"...

The news media has said repeatedly that he entered knowing there would not be any guns in the store. Same for the spineless cowards that shoot up schools, church's and such. They know these places have a no firearms policy and feel safe in the tactics they use. Screw his grieving family, sad as this all is he is gone and will not harm others at gun point any more.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Kroger's board room right now (I used to run the beat where their corporate HQ is located).

The corporate attorneys, who have convinced Kroger execs that it's cheaper to have employees murdered than to allow them to defend themselves, are saying that they can't back the shooter because there might be a lawsuit. And, if they let THIS guy slide, OTHER Kroger employees who want to go home to their families might start carrying too.

The PR people are scared to death of the reaction of the public (who no doubt overwhelmingly support the employee) and are arguing to retain the employee and avoid a boycott.

I have not yet seen or heard the race of the employee, but if he is the same race as the dead guy, that's a whole NEW can of worms. Fire him and there will be backlash from the minority community.

This is REALLY going to be interesting.

^ this.

 

[mainjet]

Kroger wants to sell groceries. They do not want a legal fight to defend their employee over shooting someone and they do not want to offend people like us who believe the employee did the right thing. They also do not want to be sued from the family of the offender because they let an employee have a gun in the store.

So they need to calm the "fears" of those that think that employees have guns and not offend the 90+ percent of the public that thinks he did the right thing. If they could wiggle their nose and make everyone forget about this they would. So that is where the middle of the road response will come from. Which is all designed to give everyone something but not quite everything.

 

[littletommy]

The news media has said repeatedly that he entered knowing there would not be any guns in the store. Same for the spineless cowards that shoot up schools, church's and such. They know these places have a no firearms policy and feel safe in the tactics they use. Screw his grieving family, sad as this all is he is gone and will not harm others at gun point any more.

Funny how the truth and reality slips in occasionally to cause the media to contradict their own agenda, isn't it?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

They do not have any obligation. to the employee or customers to be safe. They just do not have to do someting to make it unsafe. You and I could argue that prohibiting firearms makes the place less safe but todays execitves who are college brainwashed/educated are not going to agree with you. They have no obligation to keep you safe nor do the police.....It is their business and they can do what they want....if they allow firearms then they are implicitly legally responsible for every firearm act or accident by their employees. They did not commit the crime so they are not responsible for it. They were not negligent in letting the crime happen so they cannot be faulted here as this is a public place where anyone can come and go. Companies have the no firearms rules for employees and customers to limit their liability if an incident happens. They cannot be implicated because they stated that they did not allow firearms. This is not a law but a policy. There is not civil or criminal penalties for carrying a concealed weapon. An openly carried firearm might be different because they would ask you to leave. If you did not then it could be construed as criminal trespassing....

You have an interesting perspective there (not that I think you agree with it). Consider this, OSHA and IOSHA regulate work safety conditions to the most minute degree, holding employers responsible for ensuring their workers use safe work practices for everything from changing a light bulb to mopping the floor. But apparently, ensuring their employees don't get killed by anyone while at work doesn't fit into a definition of "safe operations". How strange is that?(Rhetorically speaking, of course)

 

[Notavictim646]

The news media has said repeatedly that he entered knowing there would not be any guns in the store.

Pretty sick, but you can bet there is an attorney courting the deceased mans family right now.

This is how the I think the lawyer will frame the case. "This Poor young man never intended to hurt anyone. He did not have a gun and just wanted to scare the employee into giving him a few dollars to help him get by (times are tough, you know). He purposly went into a store where he knew nobody would have a gun (not even the unarmed security guard) that way, nobody would get hurt. Unfortunately he was gunned down by a manger who had total disregard for the rules that his employer had put in place to keep everyone safe. If it was not for this Kroger employee, this young man (and everyone else) would be alive today."

I hope I am wrong and it Makes me Ill just to type it out, but I can see it coming. Pray for the Manager and his family. Kroger will have to decide if they are going to support this young man and risk a Bull lawsuit or lose a Ton of business (including mine) if they fire him.

 

[Bunnykid68]

They do not have any obligation. to the employee or customers to be safe. They just do not have to do someting to make it unsafe. You and I could argue that prohibiting firearms makes the place less safe but todays execitves who are college brainwashed/educated are not going to agree with you. They have no obligation to keep you safe nor do the police.....It is their business and they can do what they want....if they allow firearms then they are implicitly legally responsible for every firearm act or accident by their employees. They did not commit the crime so they are not responsible for it. They were not negligent in letting the crime happen so they cannot be faulted here as this is a public place where anyone can come and go. Companies have the no firearms rules for employees and customers to limit their liability if an incident happens. They cannot be implicated because they stated that they did not allow firearms. This is not a law but a policy. There is not civil or criminal penalties for carrying a concealed weapon. An openly carried firearm might be different because they would ask you to leave. If you did not then it could be construed as criminal trespassing....

How about if they had no policy at all concerning firearms. Sorta like Indiana Law is silent about how you carry your weapon of choice. How about this statement....and I quote myself "As long as you do not violate any laws of the state that you inhabit we are happy to have you as an employee". I think that covers it.

 

[Roadie]

Pretty sick, but you can bet there is an attorney courting the deceased mans family right now.

This is how the I think the lawyer will frame the case. "This Poor young man never intended to hurt anyone. He did not have a gun and just wanted to scare the employee into giving him a few dollars to help him get by (times are tough, you know). He purposly went into a store where he knew nobody would have a gun (not even the unarmed security guard) that way, nobody would get hurt. Unfortunately he was gunned down by a manger who had total disregard for the rules that his employer had put in place to keep everyone safe. If it was not for this Kroger employee, this young man (and everyone else) would be alive today."

I hope I am wrong and it Makes me Ill just to type it out, but I can see it coming. Pray for the Manager and his family. Kroger will have to decide if they are going to support this young man and risk a Bull lawsuit or lose a Ton of business (including mine) if they fire him.

"He was trying to turn his life around, then this uncaring Kroger employee took the law into his own hands and murdered by baby boy!"

 

[churchmouse]

Pretty sick, but you can bet there is an attorney courting the deceased mans family right now.

This is how the I think the lawyer will frame the case. "This Poor young man never intended to hurt anyone. He did not have a gun and just wanted to scare the employee into giving him a few dollars to help him get by (times are tough, you know). He purposly went into a store where he knew nobody would have a gun (not even the unarmed security guard) that way, nobody would get hurt. Unfortunately he was gunned down by a manger who had total disregard for the rules that his employer had put in place to keep everyone safe. If it was not for this Kroger employee, this young man (and everyone else) would be alive today."

I hope I am wrong and it Makes me Ill just to type it out, but I can see it coming. Pray for the Manager and his family. Kroger will have to decide if they are going to support this young man and risk a Bull lawsuit or lose a Ton of business (including mine) if they fire him.

Well stated. Sad as it is, you are probably correct. It is not about right or wrong. It is about the settlement and the lawyers cut.

 

[ralphb72]

They do not have any obligation. to the employee or customers to be safe. They just do not have to do someting to make it unsafe.

I disagree. They have every obligation as the employer to make the area safe. OSHA uses the "General Duty Clause" to mean anything it wants:


SEC. 5. Duties
(a) Each employer --

(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;

(2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.

So for a store that has been robbed before, or is in a high crime area, a recognized hazard should be getting robbed. The employer SHALL furnish a place free from recognized hazards, not may or should but SHALL. If one unarmed security officer is not enough, then they are required to provide some other way to be free from recognized hazards.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I disagree. They have every obligation as the employer to make the area safe. OSHA uses the "General Duty Clause" to mean anything it wants:


SEC. 5. Duties
(a) Each employer --

(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;

(2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.

So for a store that has been robbed before, or is in a high crime area, a recognized hazard should be getting robbed. The employer SHALL furnish a place free from recognized hazards, not may or should but SHALL. If one unarmed security officer is not enough, then they are required to provide some other way to be free from recognized hazards.

Someone call OSHA and see if they support that sentiment. I do.

 

[ralphb72]

I doubt if they will, but you can bet if it was something the other way, that they WANTED to enforce, they would just say that it is covered by the General Duty Clause.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

How about if they had no policy at all concerning firearms. Sorta like Indiana Law is silent about how you carry your weapon of choice. How about this statement....and I quote myself "As long as you do not violate any laws of the state that you inhabit we are happy to have you as an employee". I think that covers it.

Sure, sounds great. The problem comes when the quotes for insurance come in or in this case, likely self insured/bonded and the corp. lawyers enter the boardroom.....Most business models call for profits at some point and shareholders certainly want the greatest dividends they can get......... we're stuck with no gun policies until the law changes.

 

[John Galt]

Sure, sounds great. The problem comes when the quotes for insurance come in or in this case, likely self insured/bonded and the corp. lawyers enter the boardroom.....Most business models call for profits at some point and shareholders certainly want the greatest dividends they can get......... we're stuck with no gun policies until the law changes.

What law needs to change? How should the new law read? Just curious ...

 

[Roadie]

Kroger Shooting To Spark Gun Bill Debate At Statehouse - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

 

[ThrottleJockey]

What law needs to change? How should the new law read? Just curious ...

That's above my pay grade.....however I think that something preventing property rights from trumping 2A rights when the property is used to conduct commerce with the general public? Something forcing corporations to recognize the human right to defend ones self and preventing insurance corps from holding it against them when they fail to initiate a no gun policy? Oh and maybe throw a line or two in there about civil suits in regards to guns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking property rights. Just trying to more clearly define "private property" vs. not so private engaging in commerce with the general public property.

 

[mmills50]

Like an armed security gaurd, I've seen many marshes with them