Taco Bell employees pull guns on armed robbers

[Jusme]

The more potential victims stand up and defend themselves, the more the thugs will start to reconsider their actions. The laws aren't deterents but the high probability of leaving an attempted robbery in a body bag is.

Except those thugs with an IQ of 75 - they'll continue to nominate themselves for Darwin Awards.

Kinda curious as to how someone with an IQ of 75, could be a drug trafficker? Sounds more like he found a loophole in the system, to stay out of jail. Not only that, he was a convicted, felon, and still had a gun.

I don't doubt that his family will want to sue Taco Bell, for shooting back at their son who "just got in with the wrong crowd"

[mojo84]

The more potential victims stand up and defend themselves, the more the thugs will start to reconsider their actions. The laws aren't deterents but the high probability of leaving an attempted robbery in a body bag is.

Except those thugs with an IQ of 75 - they'll continue to nominate themselves for Darwin Awards.

That's a strong point. Hopefully, the ones with more than a couple brain cells will be deterred.

[bmwrdr]

[quote="...

It would be great if we could find a way to flip the liability issue around 180 degrees. Corporations that limit an individual's ability to protect themselves and others should be liable for the results of that limitation, whether the limitation is effected (affected?) by policy against employees, or 30.06 signage against customers. If your actions increase the likelihood of injury and / or death, then you should be civilly liable for the results of those actions, IMHO, even if the actions are perfectly legal.

Pass legislation to this effect and insurance companies will start charging increased rates to companies that restrict gun possession. That would be a huge help to our cause.[/quote]

Companies lik Taco Bell should be glad to have employees not just protecting others but also keep the success of criminals reduced. Discouraging thugs isn't a crime either.
If the white colar thugs think they have to mess with courgeous employees we all will know what they are up to. Lineral opinions do not justify a change in the legal system just because it sounds harsh to defend a business. What could have happened if they would notr have stopped the threat is a much more important aspect of the story. I just can imagibe what a bunch of drug fueled morons can cause in the press if they succeed with their crime, the anti gun lobby would be all over it and the criminals would be the victim of the circumstatnce. At least in the liberals mind.
And I would also agree if their insurance premium would go down by a few percent for having armed personell on site.

[mojo84]

For those of you that seem to think my comment was without basis. It's fairly common that employees that defend themselves or attempt to protect company property is terminated. Also, I'm sure there are some corporations that wouldn't consider that a favorable event. Keep in mind, not all corporate policies align with the opinions of most on here.

https://www.google.com/search?q=employe ... e&ie=UTF-8

[bmwrdr]

For those of you that seem to think my comment was without base. It's fairly common that employees that defend themselves or attempt to protect company property is terminated. Also, I'm sure there are some corporations that wouldn't consider that a favorable event. Keep in mind, not all corporate policies align with the opinions of most on here.

https://www.google.com/search?q=employe ... e&ie=UTF-8

I do not disagree with you at all and you have a good point.
I think those companies not adapting to state laws an their property create a comfort zone for criminals and not for their customers.