TexasCHLforum.com

Found this tidbit today:

"....CLEVELAND (AP) — Police say three employees of a Cleveland fast food restaurant opened fire on two armed robbers, killing one. Authorities say two masked robbers entered a Taco Bell on Wednesday and ordered employees to the ground. Police say three employees pulled out their guns and fired, hitting one of the robbers six times. The other ran away.

Investigators say the man who was shot was found with a loaded gun in his hand. He was taken to a hospital and pronounced dead......"

I hope they don't lose their jobs. Also, it's too bad I can't stand Taco Hell any more.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... _by_c.html

Jackson's criminal history includes three convictions for attempted drug trafficking since 2012. Jackson's cases were all referred to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court's mental health docket because Jackson's IQ was below 75, according to court records.

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.

^^ Exactly what my wife and I said to each other. ^^

C-dub wrote:

I hope they don't lose their jobs. Also, it's too bad I can't stand Taco heck any more.

The food offered at Taco Bell isn't my preference either but in regards to the employees I wouldn't worry, their action was legal.

Taco Bell said in a statement to WMAR that the employees at the location were "very shaken up" about what happened and the franchise would be offering counseling to anyone who needs it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/a ... -1.3477111

bmwrdr wrote:

C-dub wrote:

I hope they don't lose their jobs. Also, it's too bad I can't stand Taco heck any more.

The food offered at Taco Bell isn't my preference either but in regards to the employees I wouldn't worry, their action was legal.

Taco Bell said in a statement to WMAR that the employees at the location were "very shaken up" about what happened and the franchise would be offering counseling to anyone who needs it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/a ... -1.3477111

The problem is that they could still be fired if they violated company policy even though their actions were legal. Very few fast food workers can afford to lose their jobs.

mojo84 wrote:

bmwrdr wrote:

C-dub wrote:

I hope they don't lose their jobs. Also, it's too bad I can't stand Taco heck any more.

The food offered at Taco Bell isn't my preference either but in regards to the employees I wouldn't worry, their action was legal.

Taco Bell said in a statement to WMAR that the employees at the location were "very shaken up" about what happened and the franchise would be offering counseling to anyone who needs it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/a ... -1.3477111

The problem is that they could still be fired if they violated company policy even though their actions were legal. Very few fast food workers can afford to lose their jobs.

But fewer can afford to lose their lives...

RogueUSMC wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

bmwrdr wrote:

C-dub wrote:

I hope they don't lose their jobs. Also, it's too bad I can't stand Taco heck any more.

The food offered at Taco Bell isn't my preference either but in regards to the employees I wouldn't worry, their action was legal.

Taco Bell said in a statement to WMAR that the employees at the location were "very shaken up" about what happened and the franchise would be offering counseling to anyone who needs it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/a ... -1.3477111

The problem is that they could still be fired if they violated company policy even though their actions were legal. Very few fast food workers can afford to lose their jobs.

But fewer can afford to lose their lives...

Do you think I was implying they shouldn't have defended themselves in spite of my initial comment in this thread? I'm just concerned TB may fire them even though what they did was legal.

No need to look for an argument on this as I believe we are in agreement they did the right thing.

I just like it that 3 EMPLOYEES pulled their guns to defend themselves....
most places would be 0 or maybe 1...

I believe YUM Brands (based in Texas) Taco Bell franchises their restaurants. I would be surprised if 3 of the employees were carrying without knowledge of the owner of that location. But no doubt the corporation has some dumb antigun policies in their franchise agreements...for the 'children' and for 'liability' of course. Hopefully they will ignore them.

ScottDLS wrote:I believe YUM Brands (based in Texas) Taco Bell franchises their restaurants. I would be surprised if 3 of the employees were carrying without knowledge of the owner of that location. But no doubt the corporation has some dumb antigun policies in their franchise agreements...for the 'children' and for 'liability' of course. Hopefully they will ignore them.

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.

Teamless wrote:I just like it that 3 EMPLOYEES pulled their guns to defend themselves.... most places would be 0 or maybe 1...

And that's what caught my eye as well! Bully for them.

An earlier post mentioned the employees might lose their jobs, there are a plethora of minimum wage jobs available so that would be no huge loss. Somebody willing to work could find a replacement job in a heartbeat.

johncanfield wrote:

Teamless wrote:I just like it that 3 EMPLOYEES pulled their guns to defend themselves.... most places would be 0 or maybe 1...

And that's what caught my eye as well! Bully for them.

An earlier post mentioned the employees might lose their jobs, there are a plethora of minimum wage jobs available so that would be no huge loss. Somebody willing to work could find a replacement job in a heartbeat.

Someone willing to work, and protect their employer's property, will probably have a better than average chance, and may get more than minimum wage. JMHO

mojo84 wrote: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.