Thread: Sued, Fired or Both
Results 1 to 10 of 10
#1 Sued, Fired or Both07-13-2008, 08:30 PM
I just saw a video of a store employee in Denton, TX defending himself and his store from an armed robber. It appears that prior to fighting back he was struck in the face with the gun. At that point the employee decided enough was enough and opened a case of whup-ass on the robber. What ya want to bet, he'll be fired from his job and then successfully sued in civil court?
We got any good people(Republicans) from Arkansas here today? I was looking for an opinion or two on your boy, Gilbert Baker.Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
- Join Date
- May 2008
07-13-2008, 10:19 PM
" To the world you are just one more person, but to a rescued pet, you are the world."
"A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!"
07-14-2008, 02:48 AM
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Central Coast Ca.
I had a great uncle who worked in the gallows of a Tenn. prison. Creepy. He was a prisoner, but a trustee. He and another trustee would get the place all ready and then escort the soon to be hung to the place of execution. I read a very old newspaper article where he was interviewed and it was chilling. Just kinda creepy.
FEMALE ADVICE ADVICE
Last edited by Scarlet; 04-18-2011 at 06:32 AM.
07-14-2008, 05:56 AM
The fact that you bring up the possibility that the worker who beat off the robber might get sued or fired points to how badly the liberals have screwed up our legal system.
He should be given a medal. Liberals have made everything about lawsuits and made it easy for scum like the robber to collect damages from the companies and people they prey on.
07-14-2008, 07:43 AM
In Texas I doubt the employee will get fired or sued. In Florida, probably both. This past weekend, we had 3 pizza delivery drivers robbed at gunpoint. One set of robbers were caught due to being totally stupid. They were found to possess $12.00 adn 3 pizzas. Who says crime doesn't pay?
When I was a kid, we were the United States of America, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Now, we're America, Land of the Sheep and Home of the Naïve.
Live each day as if you're going to die tomorrow. Learn each day as if you'll live forever.
07-14-2008, 09:59 AM
It depends on the state. In Colorado, he'd be okay. Criminals and their relatives have very little recourse if they are injured by a victim during the course of a crime here.
07-14-2008, 11:09 AM
Barack Obama Voted Four Times To Allow Criminal Charges Against Homeowners Who Defend Their Person and Home With a Gun
Barack Obama specifically voted four times in the Illinois Legislature to allow criminal charges against a homeowner who used a firearm in self-defense of their person and home -- specifically what the Supreme Court says is a constitutional right. Obama may say he supports it, but his record says exactly the opposite.
In 2004, the Illinois Senate considered S.B. 2165 (IL 2004), sponsored by Senator Ed Petka (R-Plainfield). The bill came about because of an arrest in Wilmette, IL in late December of 2003. A 54-year-old businessman shot and wounded a man who had broken into his home for the second time in 24 hours. Cook County prosecutors found the shooting justified, but the businessman, Mr. DeMar, faced a fine and possible destruction of two guns under a 1989 village ordinance prohibiting handgun possession.
S.B. 2165 would allow residents to use self-defense as a basis for seeking dismissal of criminal charges stemming from local gun ordinances if they used the banned weapon in an act of self-defense in their home, business or property.
Obama voted no on third reading March 25, 2004, and voted no on concurrence to a House amendment on May 25, 2004. In fact, Obama voted no four times: in the Judiciary Committee, on Third Reading, in the Judiciary Committee's vote on concurrence with the House, and on the final concurrence.
Luckily for the people of Illinois, the legislation passed despite Obama's opposition. Had he had his way, people in Illinois could still be prosecuted for defending themselves against crimes.
But that's not the only time Obama has voted against the people's right to keep and bear arms.
In 1999, Obama voted in favor of S.B. 177 (IL 1999). The legislation required guns to be secured by trigger locks, placed in a lock box, or placed in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a minor. Likewise, in 2003, Obama voted for H.B. 2579 (IL 2003) for a law that restricted the rights of Illinois's citizens so that they could only buy one gun a month. The law created the offense of "unlawful acquisition of handguns."
In 2001, Obama voted against S.B. 604 (IL 2001), which would have allowed individuals who have valid orders of protection against other individuals to carry concealed weapons for their protection. The bill would have created an affirmative defense against a charge of violating Illinois's concealed carry law if the person had a lawfully issued protection order against someone seeking to do harm to the person.
In 2002, Obama voted against S.B. 397 (IL 2002), which amended the Firearms Owners Indentification Card Act. The legislation was specifically crafted for sporting events and allowed a non-resident participating in a sanctioned competitive shooting event in Illinois to purchase a shotgun or shotgun ammunition in Illinois, but only at the site where the event is being held, for the purpose of participating in the event.
07-15-2008, 02:50 PM
But forgive me, I've lost faith that common sense, much less justice, are factors any longer in the American judicial system. :(Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|