It's safer for the criminal AND the company. The BG is free to engage in his trade and the company, should anything happen to the driver, can blame the BG to escape liability. The only person at risk is the driver. The company would probably argue that:Glock 23 wrote:i think she meant specifically safer for the armed BG'sVenus Pax wrote:How was not having a gun safe for Mr. Spiers?Blinking Dog wrote:April 2, 2008
Support pours in for pizza driver
By JACQUELINE LEE
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
A Des Moines pizza delivery driver who was suspended after he shot an alleged armed robber last week said Tuesday that he has been overwhelmed by support from people who cheered what happened.
Vonnie Walbert, vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut's corporate offices in Dallas, said last week that employees are not allowed to carry guns "because we believe that that is the safest for everybody."
"In my circumstance, there was no way out."
* If the driver felt he was at risk, he should have refused to make the delivery.
* If confronted by a BG, he should have complied with his demands and he would have escaped injury.
* If the BG injures the driver, it's either due to the criminal actions of a third party we cannot control or because of the inproper decision of the driver to go against our policy and fight back.