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

[Hammerhead]

Sure, they can pay for armed guards for the guys house, but the stores have to keep the unarmed ones.

Makes sense.

 

[thompal]

plus IT IS un-necessary. No STATE may make a law that contravenes The Constitution.

While i fully agree with what you say, I will point out the fallacy of it with one word:

ILLINOIS

 

[williamsburg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilBlackGun
plus IT IS un-necessary. No STATE may make a law that contravenes The Constitution.

While i fully agree with what you say, I will point out the fallacy of it with one word:

ILLINOIS

exactly


and think this is the same state Obama came from...oh i forgot he was born in hawaii...

 

[TTravis]

Did Kroger make any decisions on whether or not to fire that employee?

 

[churchmouse]

I saw on the news this morning that Kroger has hired a private security firm & has had armed guards in front of the employees house since the robbery happened on Monday.

That's a nice gesture by Kroger, but isn't it obvious that this guy has weapons & isn't afraid to use them to protect himself & others? Who in their right mind would try to go to his house & do him harm??

OH. Wait, now I get it, the family of the innocent perp that was shot down because he was misunderstood...

The family that robs and pillage's together...stays together.

 

[mmills50]

OPSEC

 

[Darral27]

I would also be interested in knowing the outcome for this employee. If they fire him they will never again see another dime of my money.

 

[pinshooter45]

WIBC has been getting pretty bad lately. I wonder where the pressure is coming from?

Ratings? Have you seen their stock prices lately? Last time I looked their shares were under $1.00, used to be around $3-5.00 maybe Its just the depression, er...excuse me recession.

 

[LP1]

I would also be interested in knowing the outcome for this employee. If they fire him they will never again see another dime of my money.

Let me start by saying that I'm strongly in favor of not spending money at businesses that have policies I disagree with. But consider this: most, if not all businesses have a "no weapons" policy. The only difference between Kroger and any other retailer is that the BG chose Kroger for his crime. The same thing could just as easily have happened at Marsh, or Target, or (name of any other store). What good is a boycott of Kroger if it means more business for another company that has a similar policy (you gotta buy food somewhere)? The legislature could pass a law saying that employers could not prevent their employees from carrying weapons, but wouldn't that be an infringement on private property rights?

Not sure what the answer is. Need to keep the spotlight on Kroger to see how they handle it, but blaming Kroger is missing the point.

 

[Birds Away]

Let me start by saying that I'm strongly in favor of not spending money at businesses that have policies I disagree with. But consider this: most, if not all businesses have a "no weapons" policy. The only difference between Kroger and any other retailer is that the BG chose Kroger for his crime. The same thing could just as easily have happened at Marsh, or Target, or (name of any other store). What good is a boycott of Kroger if it means more business for another company that has a similar policy (you gotta buy food somewhere)? The legislature could pass a law saying that employers could not prevent their employees from carrying weapons, but wouldn't that be an infringement on private property rights?

Not sure what the answer is. Need to keep the spotlight on Kroger to see how they handle it, but blaming Kroger is missing the point.

I have to agree, reluctantly. If they have a policy and someone violates said policy, they must take action. If not, someone down the line will have a case for "playing favorites".

 

[eblevins]

deserves a raise

Maybe chief of security? I think all places of business should encourage staff to become proficient and carry.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Let me start by saying that I'm strongly in favor of not spending money at businesses that have policies I disagree with. But consider this: most, if not all businesses have a "no weapons" policy. The only difference between Kroger and any other retailer is that the BG chose Kroger for his crime. The same thing could just as easily have happened at Marsh, or Target, or (name of any other store). What good is a boycott of Kroger if it means more business for another company that has a similar policy (you gotta buy food somewhere)? The legislature could pass a law saying that employers could not prevent their employees from carrying weapons, but wouldn't that be an infringement on private property rights?

Not sure what the answer is. Need to keep the spotlight on Kroger to see how they handle it, but blaming Kroger is missing the point.

I'm not much for simple solutions to complex problems. Nonetheless, the simple solution is to make the exercise of one's rights (all of them!) a protected class. A person may not be discriminated against for invoking any enumerated right nor for exercising his unenumerated rights, either by government or by private citizens or businesses, without risking a lawsuit. Termination paperwork or recordings of incidents would constitute prima facie evidence of the discrimination.

Turn firing someone who is merely exercising his rights into a "hate crime", and the problem is a thing of the past.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[indykid]

I'm not much for simple solutions to complex problems. Nonetheless, the simple solution is to make the exercise of one's rights (all of them!) a protected class. A person may not be discriminated against for invoking any enumerated right nor for exercising his unenumerated rights, either by government or by private citizens or businesses, without risking a lawsuit. Termination paperwork or recordings of incidents would constitute prima facie evidence of the discrimination.

Turn firing someone who is merely exercising his rights into a "hate crime", and the problem is a thing of the past.



Blessings,
Bill

I like that, getting fired for exercising a right is a hate crime!

 

[mmills50]

Actually some marshs have armed guards

 

[DarkRose]

I'm not much for simple solutions to complex problems. Nonetheless, the simple solution is to make the exercise of one's rights (all of them!) a protected class. A person may not be discriminated against for invoking any enumerated right nor for exercising his unenumerated rights, either by government or by private citizens or businesses, without risking a lawsuit. Termination paperwork or recordings of incidents would constitute prima facie evidence of the discrimination.

Turn firing someone who is merely exercising his rights into a "hate crime", and the problem is a thing of the past.



Blessings,
Bill

Repped!
however, what happens whben excercising a right becomes a crime? I.e. exercising first amendment speech becomes inciting, such as a hate group? Would the crime trump the protected right? Or does crossing the line to crime remove one from the protected class?

Excuse the typos, its very cold to type on my cell phone, lol.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Crimes have victims. (and yes, I know someone is going to bring up prostitution and drug use) Victim means someone's rights were infringed. There is no right to infringe on the rights of another (reference the old "right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose" thing)

You do not have the right to never be offended, but you DO have a right to defend the life your Creator gave you.

To me, the question of precedence does not exist.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fargo]

I'm not much for simple solutions to complex problems. Nonetheless, the simple solution is to make the exercise of one's rights (all of them!) a protected class. A person may not be discriminated against for invoking any enumerated right nor for exercising his unenumerated rights, either by government or by private citizens or businesses, without risking a lawsuit. Termination paperwork or recordings of incidents would constitute prima facie evidence of the discrimination.

Turn firing someone who is merely exercising his rights into a "hate crime", and the problem is a thing of the past.



Blessings,
Bill

Under your solution, the problem balloons; it does not become a thing of the past.

Keep in mind under your solution, Kroger can run to the government and sue all of us who boycotted them for firing this guy because we have infringed upon their "right to contract"; a right that certainly does exist. Kroger is the victim because we have deprived them of business because they exercised their contractual rights. We are all now hate criminals.

Unfortunatly, all the proposed solution does is bring even more government interference into everyone of our lives. We no longer have the freedom to contract, which is really what Kroger's ability to fire this employee is about. Now, everytime someone is "unfair" to us or infringes on what we believe to be our "rights", we run to the government.

We all know that the government is here to help, right?

Maybe instead we never should have entered into an employment contract that would allow us to be fired if we brought a weapon to work instead?

"Discriminate" didn't used to be a bad word, nor was "prejudice." A person of "sound prejudices" meant a person of discerning judgement. It wasn't until everyone wanted to have their very own "protected class" that we suddenly got the way we are now.

People don't seem to realize that the very notion of a "protected class" means that you discriminate between them and others and you are prejudiced for them and against others.

Nevermind who it is that gets to decide what is a "right" and what isn't. That is a whole nuther pandora's box of government tyranny.

Best,

Joe

 

[thompal]

Under your solution, the problem balloons; it does not become a thing of the past.

Keep in mind under your solution, Kroger can run to the government and sue all of us who boycotted them for firing this guy because we have infringed upon their "right to contract"; a right that certainly does exist. Kroger is the victim because we have deprived them of business because they exercised their contractual rights. We are all now hate criminals.

The problem with your example is that we have not interfered with their right of contract. Expressing displeasure or disapproval is not the same thing as interference.

Also, people have a right to shop where they please. That decision can be made as a statement to express discontent with higher prices. It can be a matter of convenience, as in the store is not easy to get to. It can be an expression of personal preference, in that people prefer another store for ANY reason at all. Or, it could be a 1st Amendment statement, in that you personally are offended with their stance on something, and refuse to shop there as a matter of principle.

By your example, anyone who refuses to buy from a company which outsources labor to China would be guilty of "hate crimes" for trying to influence that company to stop hiring Chinese nationals and support Communist China.

 

[Fargo]

The problem with your example is that we have not interfered with their right of contract. Expressing displeasure or disapproval is not the same thing as interference.

Also, people have a right to shop where they please. That decision can be made as a statement to express discontent with higher prices. It can be a matter of convenience, as in the store is not easy to get to. It can be an expression of personal preference, in that people prefer another store for ANY reason at all. Or, it could be a 1st Amendment statement, in that you personally are offended with their stance on something, and refuse to shop there as a matter of principle.

By your example, anyone who refuses to buy from a company which outsources labor to China would be guilty of "hate crimes" for trying to influence that company to stop hiring Chinese nationals and support Communist China.

No, under Bill's solution, where any private individual or corporation discriminates because of exercise of a right they would be guilty of a "hate crime". That is my point.

Legally, any sale involves a contract. Our refusal to enter into sales contracts with them is no different than them refusing to enter into employment contracts with people who insist on carrying a weapon to work.

If Kroger can't discriminate in contract decisions because someone wants to exercise a "right", then why would you think we would be able to discriminate them for the exercise of their right to contract?

Taken to its logical end, Bill's solution causes way more problems than it solves.

Best,

Joe

 

[Bill of Rights]

No, under Bill's solution, where any private individual or corporation discriminates because of exercise of a right they would be guilty of a "hate crime". That is my point.

Legally, any sale involves a contract. Our refusal to enter into sales contracts with them is no different than them refusing to enter into employment contracts with people who insist on carrying a weapon to work.

If Kroger can't discriminate in contract decisions because someone wants to exercise a "right", then why would you think we would be able to discriminate them for the exercise of their right to contract?

Taken to its logical end, Bill's solution causes way more problems than it solves.

Best,

Joe

Do they have a right to our business, though? I'm thinking not.

Nonetheless, you're correct that I fell into the trap of using government to solve a problem when government IS the problem. (and this is why I don't like simple solutions to complex problems.) Mea culpa. The real solution is to educate people on a large scale so that they choose to stop infringing on the rights of others. We have a long, long way to go on that front.

Rep inbound.

Blessings,
Bill