Workplace Violence Policy

[AJSully421]

One of the best things about being self-employed is that I get to set my own carry policy. Back when I worked for a company, I always carried. Even if it was a J frame in an ankle holster or a Shield 9mm in an IWB rig... I always had a gun.

[treadlightly]

"Run or hide could be like deescalation."

Deescalation?

I'm not fully understanding, but if you mean fewer targets because people simply aren't seen or there to be shot, I guess I understand what you mean, but find the word more appropriate when I'm the actor in a potential altercation I can halt by being mature, if you will...

When a crazed gun man is mowing down innocent people, somehow the word "deescalation" doesn't come to mind.

Fighting back/Self Defense are words that come to mind and I'm not going to concern myself with "deescalation" when a mad man is on the loose...

We're on the same page, pretty much, I just don't object to run/hide/fight advice. I guess what I want is to be in as much control as I can. Running and hiding doesn't sound like a lofty tactic, but particularly for anyone not trained (or armed) it is probably not a bad thing to consider. Even for those who can credibly engage an assailant, finding defilade would likely be a primary need.

[george72]

We need to fix the law. Employers who make their employees sitting ducks with 30.06 should be held liable in a worst case scenario, and such employers should be required to have multiple armed security (we see in the video how 1 guard is useless).

[bblhd672]

"Run or hide could be like deescalation."

Deescalation?

I'm not fully understanding, but if you mean fewer targets because people simply aren't seen or there to be shot, I guess I understand what you mean, but find the word more appropriate when I'm the actor in a potential altercation I can halt by being mature, if you will...

When a crazed gun man is mowing down innocent people, somehow the word "deescalation" doesn't come to mind.

Fighting back/Self Defense are words that come to mind and I'm not going to concern myself with "deescalation" when a mad man is on the loose...

Deescalation as defined by "rounds to center of mass and/or other fatal areas until threat is neutralized" sounds acceptable.

[Vol Texan]

I found it interesting at :59 that they took the second to pause and show that BG walking through a door posted with 30.06.

Well, in the shooter's defense, that was a 30.06 sign with pre-2016 verbiage. It refers to the "Concealed Handgun Law" in parenthesis, rather than to the "Handgun Licensing Law". It is no longer valid.

[allisji]

I found it interesting at :59 that they took the second to pause and show that BG walking through a door posted with 30.06.

Well, in the shooter's defense, that was a 30.06 sign with pre-2016 verbiage. It refers to the "Concealed Handgun Law" in parenthesis, rather than to the "Handgun Licensing Law". It is no longer valid.

You are correct, the video I believe has been around since about 2012 or so...

[CleverNickname]

Not a bad video, since it at least mentioned fighting with (improvised) weapons.

I've taken a lot of safety briefings at the different places I've worked at, and one thing that was emphasized was using the correct tool for the task, e.g., use a stepladder to get to a top shelf instead of pushing your office chair over to the shelf and standing on that.

This should also be applicable to self-defense; we should be allowed (if not encouraged) to use the correct tool instead of repurposing some scissors or a stapler or something to do a task for which they weren't designed.

[allisji]

Not a bad video, since it at least mentioned fighting with (improvised) weapons.

I've taken a lot of safety briefings at the different places I've worked at, and one thing that was emphasized was using the correct tool for the task, e.g., use a stepladder to get to a top shelf instead of pushing your office chair over to the shelf and standing on that.

This should also be applicable to self-defense; we should be allowed (if not encouraged) to use the correct tool instead of repurposing some scissors or a stapler or something to do a task for which they weren't designed.

Fire extinguisher seems like a good idea until the BG shoots it....

[oldshooter]

The whole issue of how to handle an active shooter scenario is multi-faceted, and most arguments I hear today only consider the tactical aspect. Most tactical shooting instructors teach that the most appropriate response to armed violence in your vicinity is avoidance (ie, run or hide). No sane person wants to get into a gunfight, and doing so, especially on your own initiative, is fraught with physical and legal dangers that can all be avoided by leaving the scene instead of confronting the assailant.

However, tactical considerations are not the only aspect involved. There is also a moral issue. As Col. "Jeff" Cooper once said, "Evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." After successfully escaping the place where the shooting occurred, you may have avoided all the "tactical" dangers, but you will still have to get up the next morning and look at yourself in the mirror. If we ONLY considered the tactical safety issues involved, our military would never seek out the enemy and engage him, our police and firemen would never run into dangerous situations to help the innocent, and we "ordinary citizens" would not need to go armed because we could ALWAYS run away from dangerous situations. Sure running might get you shot, but so might resisting. Carrying a gun implies that you have given this moral issue some consideration, even if only unconsciously, and have decided that, at the least, you will fight if you think your life would be more endangered by not fighting. So then you will have to face the issue of just how selfish ARE you? Who else, besides yourself, would you stay and fight for? Your spouse? Your kids? Your friends? Innocent bystanders? And THAT is where the moral decisions lie. How we make those moral decisions, will determine what kind of a society we will live in. In a combat situation where our unit is taking heavy fire and we see someone run through the incoming fire to drag a wounded mate to cover, we may think he was foolish, or even nuts, and we all secretly feel relieved that it wasn't us, but we also feel a little ashamed that WE didn't do it. I'm not saying anyone should behave foolishly, or that everyone will always behave courageously, I'm just saying that you likely will, and probably SHOULD, feel a little bit ashamed if you could have gone to the aid of others who needed it, and you didn't.

If you saw an elderly disabled neighbor slip and fall, would you help him/her up? Most decent folks would. How about if it were an apparently drunk person? Now less folks would help, because there is an increased potential downside to helping now. What if you saw a child apparently asleep or unconscious in a locked car in a hot parking lot? Would you break a window to help? Even less folks would be willing to do so, because now there is a significantly increased legal, and possibly physical, risk involved. So, how about if you are in a 7-11 store and a guy in a ski-mask who doesn't know you are there, comes in and pulls a gun on the clerk? As the downside/risk increases, the probability that help will be given generally decreases. This phenomenon has a name - it's called cowardice. Every time you encounter a situation in which you believe an innocent person needs help that you are capable of providing, you are facing a personal decision, and a character defining moment. If you don't help because you don't care about the innocent person, your behavior is inherently selfish. If you don't help because of the possible risk to yourself, you are being cowardly. Nobody does the right thing all the time, but every time you encounter such a situation, you are making a decision that informs your character. By definition, men of good character are those who most often choose to do what they think is the "right thing" regardless of the risks. I'm not saying we all have to be heroes, but we shouldn't be cowards either; and when we are, we should be ashamed of ourselves for it.

[OldCurlyWolf]

Why do I find the mantra of run/hide/fight questionable?

To me it sounds hollow.

My mantra would be: Find cover and shoot back.

Corporations especially are loath to allow employees personal guns to protect themselves.

They'd rather a flock of unarmed sheep if a killer of innocents shows up.

Better to let a killer do his thing than face a potential lawsuit because the employees were armed and defended themselves...though I don't know why lawsuits of the unarmed/unprotected killed/wounded family members won't occur...

My Current and my last employer both have a No Firearms policy. Offices are NOT posted in any manner. My wife has instructions to sue for everything she can get if the Shooter/other bad guy scenario occurs at my work and I get nailed, using the grounds that they deprived me of my ability to defend myself.

[bblhd672]

I don't understand this whole thread about Workplace "violins"!

Chevy Chase:
Here with an editorial reply is Miss Emily Lattella.

Emily Lattella:
What's all this fuss I keep hearing about violins on television? Why don't parents want their kids to see violins on television? I thought the Leonardo Bernstein concerts were just lovely, now, if they only show violins on television after ten o'clock at night, the little babies will all be asleep and they won't learn any music appreciation. They'll learn to play guitars, and bongo drums and go to Africa and join these rock'n roll outfits and they won't drink milk! I think there should be more violins on television and less game shows, it's terrible the way...

Chevy Chase:
Um, Littella, that's Violence on television. Not violins.

Emily Lattella:
Oh, well that's diffrent. Never mind!

[ninjabread]

I don't understand this whole thread about Workplace "violins"!

[ninjabread]

If you don't help because of the possible risk to yourself, you are being cowardly. Nobody does the right thing all the time, but every time you encounter such a situation, you are making a decision that informs your character. By definition, men of good character are those who most often choose to do what they think is the "right thing" regardless of the risks.

I disagree. Risk assessment is both prudent and moral.

Let's use your example of an elderly disabled neighbor who slips and falls. If that happens at the local mall, of course most people would help him/her up. However, what if you're also infirm and assisting them poses a significant risk of physical injury? I think it's reasonable, not cowardly, to stay with them and await help from somebody with greater physical strength rather than becoming a second injury victim. Even if you're young and strong, other risk factors or worth considering. What if you're on a cruise ship and the elderly neighbor slips and falls overboard? Is it cowardly to call for help rather than leap into the ocean yourself?

[rp_photo]

Why do I find the mantra of run/hide/fight questionable?
Better to let a killer do his thing than face a potential lawsuit because the employees were armed and defended themselves...though I don't know why lawsuits of the unarmed/unprotected killed/wounded family members won't occur...

The obvious solution to that problem is for businesses and employers to also be subject to liability for restricting the right of self-defense and less for abiding by state law, including immunity for the actions of a licensed carrier.

[Lynyrd]

Last week I had to watch the video that started this thread as part of ongoing training at work. One of the owners happened to be in the training room during the video and he stopped by my office later in the day to talk about something. This video gave me the perfect opportunity to bring up the 30.06/30.07 signs on our building again.

I brought up the video from the training session and we began to talk about it. When we got to the part in the video about advising people to look around for something to use as a weapon, (I think in the video one guy had a fire extinguisher and another had a chair.) my boss advised that he was going to stand behind me, and laughed! He knows I carry, and the company policy allows certain employees to do so but we must CC.

I asked him if he had noticed that the BG walked right past a no gun sign on the front of the building? He had NOT noticed the sign while watching, and I put in a little jab about how useless the signs really are. I reminded him that the only people the signs affect are license holders. I went on to say that the only guns the signs kept out were the ones that might be able to help you in a shooter situation.

We talked on for several more minutes and he listened to point after point for which he had no comeback. I haven't won the battle over the signs, but I definitely scored some points. You have to look for opportunities to bring up the subject without griping, and this video gave me the perfect opportunity.