Scenario: shooter in the workp[lace.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by ZX9RCAM, Nov 11, 2009.

  1. ZX9RCAM

    ZX9RCAM Over the Rainbow bridge... TGT Supporter

    25,961
    378
    83
    May 14, 2008
    The Woodlands, Tx.
    From another Forum.....

    As honest employee's, our workplaces forbid carry on the premisis.
    So, given a situation which happened in Orlando last Friday, I am proposing a scenario. The company obviously banned weapons on premisis. The shooter , who was a former disgruntled employee, opened fire and shot 6 people, and 1 died. If I was one of the employees, could I sue the employer on the basis of being a CWP holder, I may have been able to stop the perp? On the basis of restricting the ability to defend myself? Or something?
    Anybody have knowledge of that being done somewhere else?
    That would be an interesting case.......
    Any Lawyers out there for comment?
     


  2. codygjohnson

    codygjohnson Eats breakfast everyday Lifetime Member

    1,680
    0
    36
    Nov 11, 2009
    Flower Mound
    That would be a big win in our favor, but I'm sure it would be pretty hard to get a jury in a civil case to side pro-gun in most courts for a case like this. I'd like to hear what an attorney has to say on it though.
     
  3. SIG_Fiend

    SIG_Fiend Administrator TGT Supporter Admin

    7,262
    14
    38
    Feb 21, 2008
    Austin, TX
    Just remember, even when you think you are completely disarmed, things like a bic pen to the jugular or eye socket are usually still available to use against an attacker. ;) What we really need is to stop conditioning people to be in the "helpless sheep" mentality. If everyone just charged an active shooter, sure a few people would still get injured and/or possibly die, but the bastard would be disabled or killed a lot sooner and would never be able to achieve the body count they are looking for.
     
  4. Willy

    Willy Well-Known

    1,014
    2
    38
    Aug 28, 2009
    Ellis County
    Sorry, double post.
     
  5. Willy

    Willy Well-Known

    1,014
    2
    38
    Aug 28, 2009
    Ellis County
    If an employer is going to deny his employee's 2A rights, he should be held responsible for their security.

    A military court might favor our 2A rights, even if it is just for soldiers. Our soldiers should never be forced to be sitting ducks again after last week.
     
  6. txinvestigator

    txinvestigator TGT Addict

    13,083
    114
    63
    May 28, 2008
    Ft Worth, TX
    That is faulty on several points. You have no "2A" right to carry at work. The amendments refer to the government, not businesses.

    2nd, there is no precedent for a suit against an employer who bans handguns then has a person come in shooting. The employer must prevent FORESEEABLE acts.

    3rd, you would be hard pressed to even prove you could have or would have shot the gunman.

    You would lose. Soldier can and do carry, but bases are like towns and there MUST be regulations in place.

    Many military members, soldiers, airmen, seamen, marines, get minimal handgun training.
     
  7. Jeff B

    Jeff B Active Member

    337
    0
    16
    May 28, 2008
    Flower Mound, TX
    As I see it;

    Workplace carry depends upon the policy of the employer.

    I do suspect that there could be grounds for litigation against an employer that deprived its employees of the ability to defend themselves and failed to provide adequate security.

    Could have or would have are conjecture, and should not enter into a potential lawsuit.

    The rights of the military are not necessarily equal to those of the general public (you lose certain rights when you join). Among those losses are the ability to "sue" the military/government (feres doctrine), which usually applies to injury or loss, but in that circumstance could likely be extended to the loss of life or function.

    Most military personnel are assigned rifle/carbine style weapons. Relatively few are assigned sidearms.

    I would be in favor of recognizing the state carry laws on installations within a particular state. So, in this case, in Texas, there might well have been a legal CHL holder to shoot this rabid dog down in the manner he deserved.

    Jeff B.
     
  8. TrailDust

    TrailDust TGT Addict

    2,949
    0
    36
    Oct 29, 2009
    Kalifornication
    I worked at a reprographics store when I was in college and there was a driver who got fired for being such an incompetent, difficult, a-hole. This guy was the kind of person that put everyone on edge, and talk went around the store about whether he'd go postal. We were 100% serious about it...no joke. Being California with no right to carry and, at that time, no ability to even carry pepper spray, I spent hours going over in my mind what escape routes I would take, where I could hide, what items I could use as a last-ditch weapon. Thankfully it never happened, but it pays to not think you're being ridiculous by taking some time to plan for such an emergency.
     
  9. DCortez

    DCortez TGT Addict

    6,612
    0
    36
    Jan 28, 2009
    Houston, Cy-Fair
    Wonder if you could sue them for not getting the guy a raise, his job back, or counseling since it's their fault he went postal. :lolz:
     
  10. txinvestigator

    txinvestigator TGT Addict

    13,083
    114
    63
    May 28, 2008
    Ft Worth, TX
    IMO, that is where the argument falls apart. An employer cannot deprive you of your abilities. Only of one tool.
     

Share This Page