precedent?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Is there any legal precedent that if an employer does not allow conceal carry they are then liable for anything which the employee may otherwise have been able to defended against with a gun?
Example case:
>employees not permitted to have guns
>shooter enters store
>starts shooting people
>shoots me
Can I sue the company for this, is there precedent?
>>28086056
No. That would usually be considered in "Bad Taste" since the employer was the victim too.
Perhaps if it were something the employer could have directly prevented, like if instead Hypothetical You was a woman who was being constantly followed by an aggressive stalker, and upon asking employer directly to carry and told them the circumstances, were denied, then got assaulted in/directly outside your workplace.
No.
Even if there were, it'd be on you to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the employee would have been able to take down your shooter without any undue chance of failure, collateral damage or risk to himself.
>>28086120
That's not how civil suits work.
I'm asking if the employer creates a policy that prevents self defense, are they then liable for defending you?
Figured the answer was something like >>28086083
>>28086056
>asking 4chan for legal advice
You deserve to get sued.
I wondered this way back myself since I use to work graveyard at a drug store as a shift supervisor. There are nights that I was forced to be alone if people called out, and while technically I'm suppose to close the store, store manager didn't always let me do it.
There use to be a security guard, but was removed as a cost saving measure. No reason to protect a store that has been robbed at gun point once before I guess.
>>28086459
You could sue them based on the violation of their own policy but yeah, that's basically what I was wondering.
Our company is large and they just released the, "How to handle a mass shooting" thing, the one where they say to throw things at the shooter in a last ditch effort.
I'll be walking straight out the nearest exit lol; they want me to exercise leadership they stop tying my hands.
I just wondered if anything like this had actually gone to court.
>>28086347
>You deserve to get sued.
For what?
>>28086930
>For what?
being dumb enough to take legal advice from the Internet.
Being retarded should be a crime.
>>28086952
For your sake I hope not and what you still fail to understand is that I'm asking for an example of precedent, not advice.
Hoping to get lucky with /k/'s knowledge.
Actually yes there is. In 1994 there was a shift supervisor at the Nevada branch of the Utz snack company named Jason Deese who had several verbal altercations with an employee named Reggie Lipton. Lipton was fired after threatening J Deese one night. Liptonsncar was seen several times the following month around the exit gate of the plant. Jason contacted his regional supervisor three times that month and asked if hencouldncarry due to "special circumstances in which he feared for his safety", and was denied.
Two weeks later jason was shot in the parking lot by Lipton.
He later sued for damages and won.
For the specifics just google Deese vs N. Utz
DEEZ NUTZ NIGGA
>>28089641
meh, could have been good but you choked at the finish
>>28089681
So did your mum
