Posted on 04/01/2008 2:59:13 PM PDT by decimon
An Iowa state senator has vowed to stop buying Pizza Hut products if the chain fires a Des Moines delivery man who shot a teen who tried to rob him last week.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I haven’t bought Pizza Hut pizza since I had a slice in 1968.
true, but pizza huts “interests” revolve around avoiding litigation.
Did I misunderstand? The Senator *wants* them not to get rid of the delivery guy.
At least that’s how it read to me.
Pizza Huts interest is to sell pizza, at the highest price possible, with the least amount of cost possible. The delivery guys interest is to stay alive. Looks like they both succeded.
Yes. The senator wants Pizza Hut to keep the delivery guy.
I have bought my last Pizza Hut pizza regardless of how this turns out. The right to self defense and the right to live trumps my desire to eat crappy pizza. Pizza Hut joins Wal Mart on my permanent list of places I do not patronize. They will likely not miss my money, but it is my money and they will not see any of it.
That's about how I see it. I take employment seriously and hate seeing someone lose a job but what's happening may be the most positive outcome possible. It's the robber who forced the situation on all parties.
“The right to self defense and the right to live trumps my desire to eat crappy pizza. Pizza Hut joins Wal Mart on my permanent list of places I do not patronize. They will likely not miss my money, but it is my money and they will not see any of it.”
Bravo - I concur.
It's more than just PR. If Pizza Hut allows carry then Pizza Hut becomes liable when one nutjob employee wastes someone and another decides to knock off a liquor store between deliveries and another has one of those famous accidental discharges into someone's leg.
If the delivery guy had a concealed carry permit, then he should be able to protect himself. Illinois has lousy gun laws, no concealed carry, and we had a pizza delivery lady attacked and killed while delivering pizza in a nearby town.
"We prohibit employees from carrying guns because we believe that that is the safest for everybody."They have earned my life-time boycott award for this statement. And once I put a company on a life-time boycott, I don't even have to remember the reason why. I just remember the company and avoid them. And I will. From now on.
Good for the Senator.
Good! Nice to see an Iowa senator with some common sense. Pizza Hut shouldn’t fire someone for protecting themselves.
I appreciate your reasoning and I don’t care. Pizza Hut’s problems are not more important than a life.
If Pizza Hut allows carry then Pizza Hut becomes liable when one nutjob employee wastes someone and another decides to knock off a liquor store between deliveries and another has one of those famous accidental discharges into someone's leg.
Yours is the whole argument supporting gun control in general! If we reword your argument just slightly we get the boilerplate from the MSM and the Rebecca Peters crowd:
If *any State* allows carry then *that State* becomes liable when one nutjob *citizen* wastes someone and another decides to knock off a liquor store between deliveries and another has one of those famous accidental discharges into someone's leg.
So you support gun control, is that right?
No life was lost. The guy was able to defend himself but at the cost of his job. Not a perfect ending but then it's an imperfect world.
Then you think it’d be in Pizza Hut’s best “interest” to let employees defend themselves.
He was able to defend himself. But that is costing him his job.
Pizza Hut is not firing him for defending himself but for breaking a company policy they need to have to protect the company.
That’s how I read it too.
dough with salt..sauce is awful. Make your own. Cheaper, fresher and more delicous with fresh mozzarella, homemade sauce and fresh basil.
No undue offense but that is idiotic. Nothing I wrote is in support of anti-gun laws.
Property rights.
Pizza Hut has property rights.
If you deny to Pizza Hut their property rights then you deny to yourself your property rights.
This is not a gun control argument. Gun control involves the state. This does not involve the state. This involves property rights.
In a nearby small Texas town not far from us, a gentle, older pizza delivery man was delivering an order to three teen thugs than ambushed him when he arrived and got less than $100.00.
You never know, I say get some training, a CHL and go about your business. But on the other hand, they are usually young teens or older folks just struggling to make ends meet and not attuned to doing those things or maybe not having enough $$ and time to do it.
I meant to say ambushed him and murdered him outright.
It is in Pizza Hut's best interest to not be liable for the unpredictable actions of thousands of employees.
Indeed. Was the man on ther property when he was delivering the pizza? No, he was not. Was this in a company owned vehicle? (I checked) No, it was not. So how, pray tell, does this involve Pizza Hut's property rights?
Yet they have no problem with contractors for the company bringing loaded firearms onto Pizza Hut property.
And the Senator is protecting his interests, personal and perhaps political, as well.
I applaud him.
Too late, and the “employee” here wasn’t unpredictable - it’s normal in some parts to shoot someone who’s robbing you.
I smell a market opportunity.
New ad from Domino’s’ “ If our pizza isn’t there in 30 minutes, we’ll pop a cap in your ass”.
It doesn’t matter.
As it stands the company is on the hook just for employing him. If Pizza Hut wants to indemnify themselves, have each employee take a firearms course and if something bad happens Pizza Hut can argue that the training company should be held responsible for poor training.
Listen, I worked field service for twenty seven years and can tell you that my employer had liability for my actions while in the role of their agent.
They don't?
“’We have policy against carrying weapons,’ Vonnie Walbert, vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut’s corporate offices in Dallas told the paper for a March 28 story. ‘We prohibit employees from carrying guns because we believe that that is the safest for everybody.’”
The robbers and other assorted scum appreciate you assuring that there are plenty of easily identifiable targets out there with lots of cash on them. (There are exceptions, such as the person you are firing, but hey, enough firings will take care of that.)
Oh, BTW, Pizza Hut, FOAD.
PS Deimon, do you want to explain exactly how the above protects ANYONE’s interests but robbers and crooks?!
According to your logic apparently only those who are allowed to carry commit these types of acts. So it would be safe to assume that illegally carrying a weapon might be the preferred manner, in that Pizza Hut would not lose the money and would have deniability if something happened. Did I get it right?
Yes, because a nutjob employee is going to care about the company policy, moreso even than those "laws" about not killing people, robbing a store, etc. And that policy will shield them from vicarious liability.
Sorry, neither hold true in the real world. How about in yours?
What is allowed by the state of Iowa or the federal government is a separate matter. Pizza Hut is not a government.
Mine is the real world.
It should be obvious that the Pizza Hut policy assured no such thing in this case.
PS Deimon, do you want to explain exactly how the above protects ANYONE’s interests but robbers and crooks?!
You must not have read through the thread. Liability.
I hadn’t gotten pizza hut for a while then got a hankering for stuff crust pizza last week. Wish I had ordered Flying Pie instead. Learned my lesson.
Correct. They have a right to have a stupid policy, and we and the Congressman have a right to object to it and to boycott them...
OK, so which point do you believe? That the policy will stop a nutjob from doing something that's already illegal, or that the policy will shield them from vicarious liability if he does? If you don't believe in either, than your justification for why Pizza Hut is doing this holds no water. They are entitled to (as I said above), but it's nothing more than standard knee-jerk fear of guns on their part. And we are justified in, can, and will call them out/boycott them to our heart's content over it.
Yes. And I have a right to say I believe the senator to be wrong in pressuring a private entity to accept his concept of what should be their policies.
Thin reed at best. Having no policy would be better. If I were a family member of someone who was robbed/killed while delivering pizzas, I would sue the crud out of them FOR this policy. If I am or have a family member who is hurt by a Pizza Hut employee with a gun, then I will use the fact that they have the policy as indication that they knew there was a potential for employees to be armed and look into what other steps they took to prevent such. Just firing people who defend themselves wouldn't help much. Do they offer training? Psychiatric screening (since they are worried about armed employees, they should)? Spot checks? Or just a paper policy to hide behind? A good lawyer would turn this into a HUGE negative. On top of that, breach of the law is not a complete shield from vicarious liability, esp. if you have some knowledge of a problem. Breach of a "paper policy" likewise is useless. In fact, as shown above, the policy itself highlights knowledge of the problem and therefore can help overcom an "intervening criminal act" defense.
Sure, you have a right to believe that. I think you are wrong, as is my right. I also believe that I've supported my position pretty well. Also, has the Congressman proposed any legislation, or is he just saying what he will do and using his position to get exposure for the issue? That's called "leadership" last time I checked -- something sorely lacking in most politicians...
Liability.
They are entitled to (as I said above), but it's nothing more than standard knee-jerk fear of guns on their part.
Not being clairvoyant, I can't say what are their beliefs.
And we are justified in, can, and will call them out/boycott them to our heart's content over it.
If you so wish.
Pizza Hut is willing to sacrifice an employee so as to appease the great gods of political correctness. I’m with the employee.
I haven't purchased a Pepsico product since they cut a deal with the Soviets in 88 (I think). Even though Pizza Hut now belongs to YUM Brands, I still won't give them any money. Here are some other brands to not patronize.
The employee accepted that when he made employment contract with Pizza Hut. The employee broke his contract with Pizza Hut.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.