clerk fired job for fightin who threatened to kill him

#26
#26
Just as long as they dont hire only whites!! Then u scream racist!!!!!

Do you know what a WASP is?

Also, I would scream racist/sexist/bigoted, in any of those cases; however, individuals have the right to be racist/sexist/bigoted. Persons have the right to be *******s and to be worthless human beings.
 
#27
#27
Serious question, transammann, do you have a college degree? If so, where from and in what?
 
#29
#29
I answer this with a resounding "Yes!" I have already addressed your other questions.

I am not okay with companies that hire/fire based on race/gender/sexual orientation; however, I will defend their right to do so.


You just wont defend a mans right to defend his life, companys out weigh that
 
#31
#31
You just wont defend a mans right to defend his life, companys out weigh that

He had the right to defend his life; I am not advocating that he go to jail or be charged with assault. However, prior to that act, he violated company policy by refusing to hand over the money. The company has the right to fire him; I am okay with the company exercising that right as the company is focused on their financial bottom-line, as the company should be.
 
#33
#33
He had the right to defend his life; I am not advocating that he go to jail or be charged with assault. However, prior to that act, he violated company policy by refusing to hand over the money. The company has the right to fire him; I am okay with the company exercising that right as the company is focused on their financial bottom-line, as the company should be.

Do you support voter ID?

A simple yes or no

Do you support Abortion ban

A simple yes or no
 
#34
#34
company policy???..LOL

Guess u are OK with company policy that would allow smokers anywhere in the building?

Guess u are OK with company policy that would fire all known gays

Guess u are OK with company policy that would fire all known girls that got or had an abortion?

I'm not sure you're getting where TRUT's coming from on this. Apologies to TRUT if I'm incorrect in this assumption but I would guess that if a company allowed carry of personal firearms (if licensed to do so) and the perps had been shot on the spot TRUT wouldn't have a problem with that either.

Regardless the failure to comply with company policy is a separate issue from self-defense. If the employee HAD complied and given them the money when asked and THEN they were still threatening to harm him he should be able to do whatever is required to defend himself. TRUT was pointing out this is apparently not what happened.
 
#38
#38
Do you support voter ID?

A simple yes or no

It is not a simple question; it is a loaded question.

The question is loaded with whether or not I support popular elections for Federal Officials, specifically, for the POTUS. I do not feel that their should be any popular vote calculation in the Electoral College; I do not feel that Senators should be elected by popular vote. I do feel like US Representatives should be and the state should be allowed to establish identification measures for that election, if need be. However, since I feel that one Representative should represent no more than 100,000 citizens (roughly 30,000-50,000 voters), I do not feel as though ID cards would be extremely necessary in such a case.

So, your simple answer is that I think States have the right to demand identification at the polls; I just do not see a necessity and, therefore, I question the motives behind these moves.
 
#39
#39
I'm not sure you're getting where TRUT's coming from on this. Apologies to TRUT if I'm incorrect in this assumption but I would guess that if a company allowed carry of personal firearms (if licensed to do so) and the perps had been shot on the spot TRUT wouldn't have a problem with that either.

Regardless the failure to comply with company policy is a separate issue from self-defense. If the employee HAD complied and given them the money when asked and THEN they were still threatening to harm him he should be able to do whatever is required to defend himself. TRUT was pointing out this is apparently not what happened.

:good!:
 
#40
#40
1. The company should be able to fire whomever they want to fire for whatever reason they deem necessary.

2. The company, like most large companies, had a policy that stated that employees should not intervene in robbery attempts; the company, most likely, had insurance to back up the theft. That insurance deductible is most likely lower than would have been the deductible had the man been seriously wounded.

3. The burglars were trying to steal money from the company not from the employee.

4. The burglars, according to the article, did not verbalise their threat until the employee refused to give them money.

I worked retail in high school (Old Navy) and was subjected to a video on the first day of work in which I was admonished not to try to intervene in any robbery but simply inform my supervisor and/or call the police.

Whether or not one agrees, philosophically, with this stance is certainly debatable; however, these companies have these policies in place in order to avoid the potentially larger and more devastating costs of lawsuits that could/would occur in the event that something went horribly wrong in the intervention.

:hi: You sir are absolutely right.


company policy???..LOL

Guess u are OK with company policy that would allow smokers anywhere in the building?

Guess u are OK with company policy that would fire all known gays

Guess u are OK with company policy that would fire all known girls that got or had an abortion?

All of those policies are wrong. All of those policies are ones that a company should be able to exercise their right to implement. However, are you saying that you don't see the difference between an employee's personal opinions/actions/lifestyles and an employee's actions as a representative of his company? Talk about a leftist POV...
 
#41
#41
Right of self-defense

The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force.

Right of self-defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This would be relevant if he was being sued by the person he disarmed.
 
#42
#42
he thinks he is better then you!!

1305500136_1334_full.jpeg
 
#45
#45
He had the right to defend his life; I am not advocating that he go to jail or be charged with assault. However, prior to that act, he violated company policy by refusing to hand over the money. The company has the right to fire him; I am okay with the company exercising that right as the company is focused on their financial bottom-line, as the company should be.


The USA has policy/laws against illegal Mexicans..Glad to see you dont support all these Mexicans!!!
 
#46
#46
Would it make his opinion less informed or less important if he were only a high school graduate? I assume this is where you were going.

No, that is not where I was going. It is funny that you inferred that. The following is my reply (yesterday) to a friend's status update concerning the true value of a four year degree and it's correlation to success in the present era:

Intelligence and hard work have always been the mixture for success. That will not change. Some of the of the smartest people in this world do not have a four year college degree. Conversely, some of the dumbest people I have ever met have a college degree. A college degree does not equate to success or brainpower.

I am simply curious about other posters' background.
 

VN Store



Back
Top