Guide in workplace fo active shooter

[stainless1911]

Im saying that fighting for your rights, and maybe thus, safety or more, is worth it. Maybe much more difficult, but then again, it is a fight. If a person is educated and driven, doors open. I don't know who is hiring, but I do know what is important. It seems to me that if someone gives their lives for our rights, then any job must fall somewhere below that. I know that I would rather be poor than dead. Sure the odds are, that you will never face an active shooter at work, but what if you lose the bet?

 

[Big Gay Al]

Let me first say, there are NOT a bazillion jobs available here in Michigan. So, unless you're ready to move, there it is.

Everyone has to make their own decision on the subject of whether or not to pack in contravention of workplace rules. Knowing, if you get caught, or heaven forbid, actually have to use it in self defense, you may lose your job as a consequence.

So it's basically a personal choice.

 

[stainless1911]

Yes, it is a personal choice. Im not exactly coming from a position of wealth either.

 

[TheQ]

Me, I don't have to worry anymore. I broke my ankle at work last Sunday, so I'm off for the next 4-8 weeks now.

Ouch! Get better soon!

 

[Big Gay Al]

Ouch! Get better soon!

All I can say for now is, thank goodness for workman's comp!

 

[kubel]

I originally decided my life was more important than my job, but after hearing the words, "Hold it, we have to search you", reality set in fast. All male supervisors were for some reason not available, so the female there told me, "pat yourself down". ::pat:: ::pat:: "Clean!", I proclaimed, and then walked away (with a huge guilty grin on my face).

Now, if I need to defend myself, it will just have to wait 3 minutes until I can find one of them deep concealment holsters (crotch / underwear holsters).

 

[stainless1911]

If my boss has so little trust in me that they feel they have to, or have the right to, search me or my things, then I don't need the job.

 

[ken243]

There is no duty for a cop to protect anyone. That has been ruled by the courts.FYI those who strap a gun on their hip and stockpile ammunition are generally more the patriots than you folks, we do it for free, out of passion and love of country. You all do it for a buck and good benefits. Meanwhile you routinely break laws get away with it, actively trash the constitution, rob people for breaking some traffic law designed to bait people, and otherwise behave like a bunch of jack booted thugs. There are, of course, some exceptions to that though, of whom I am acquainted with a few, who are always welcome at my table.

A bit extreme stainless. Can you cite the "no duty to act". As it stood in 2005 (my last year as an NRA instructor) many people and professions had a duty to act. Police, Firefighters, and EMS in Michigan all have a duty to act on AND off duty. I diligently researched this because I am a Paramedic. Also, parents of minor children have a duty to protect their childen. In addition to this a husband/wife has the duty to act to protect their spouse. I would gladly cite these findings in laws and case law however my training matierals are 8000 miles away. Also, they are very spread out for internet research. I am very curious to any changes to these laws. Thank you.

+1 for losing my job before my life. the "pocket pistol" market offers many choices these days compaired to the past years.

As for the toilet paper, errr... "guide". Didn't an equally stupid guide come out in the 1960's during the Cuban missle crisis?


This may be more effective...

 

[Big Gay Al]

A bit extreme stainless. Can you cite the "no duty to act". As it stood in 2005 (my last year as an NRA instructor) many people and professions had a duty to act. Police, Firefighters, and EMS in Michigan all have a duty to act on AND off duty. I diligently researched this because I am a Paramedic. Also, parents of minor children have a duty to protect their childen. In addition to this a husband/wife has the duty to act to protect their spouse. I would gladly cite these findings in laws and case law however my training matierals are 8000 miles away. Also, they are very spread out for internet research. I am very curious to any changes to these laws. Thank you.

+1 for losing my job before my life. the "pocket pistol" market offers many choices these days compaired to the past years.

It was decided in at least one Supreme Court case years ago, the Police have no duty to us as individuals. The duty is to the public at large. This has been declared again and again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm
http://gunowners.org/sk0503.htm

And the 3 above barely skim the surface.

 

[Big Gay Al]

I originally decided my life was more important than my job, but after hearing the words, "Hold it, we have to search you", reality set in fast. All male supervisors were for some reason not available, so the female there told me, "pat yourself down". :at:: :at:: "Clean!", I proclaimed, and then walked away (with a huge guilty grin on my face).

Now, if I need to defend myself, it will just have to wait 3 minutes until I can find one of them deep concealment holsters (crotch / underwear holsters).

I don't know where you work, and won't ask, but if I walked into work and they started that with me, I'd simply turn around and leave, calling a lawyer on my way. I don't know if that falls under unreasonable searches and seizures, but it sure sounds close.

 

[MKEgal]

At work i would just use what is at my reach, piece of pipe, my crane with a 3 thousand pound magnet attached, etc.

That magnet should attract the gun right out of a shooter's hands!

 

[TheQ]

That magnet should attract the gun right out of a shooter's hands!

Stainless steal isn't magnetizable.

 

[MKEgal]

Can you cite the "no duty to act".

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.''

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989).
The Court in DeShaney held that... Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.''

California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part:
"Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

But then, CA is just generally whacky.

http://policechiefmagazine.org/maga...n=display_arch&article_id=1172&issue_id=52007

the government and its officials owe a legal duty to the public at large but not to any individual citizen

 

[MKEgal]

That magnet should attract the gun right out of a shooter's hands!

Stainless steel isn't magnetizable.

<tease>
Some of us aren't all showoffish & have plain, functional, black regular-metal guns.
</tease>

 

[ken243]

It was decided in at least one Supreme Court case years ago, the Police have no duty to us as individuals. The duty is to the public at large. This has been declared again and again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm
http://gunowners.org/sk0503.htm

And the 3 above barely skim the surface.

Thanks Al. Interesting read. All the more reason to carry!

 

[Big Gay Al]

Stainless steal isn't magnetizable.

Ok, but what about the lead in the bullets?

 

[Big Gay Al]

Thanks Al. Interesting read. All the more reason to carry!

You got that right. I sometimes think I need to print some of those out, and then when the left wing, anti-gun types ask me why I carry a gun, I can show them one of those. Most are always so quick to say, "just call the police." Makes me sick sometimes.

 

[Bikenut]

You got that right. I sometimes think I need to print some of those out, and then when the left wing, anti-gun types ask me why I carry a gun, I can show them one of those. Most are always so quick to say, "just call the police." Makes me sick sometimes.

Al.... there is no need for a long involved discussion or print outs to hand to anti gunners... the conversation can be immediately ended with a retort that no anti has an answer for...

"I carry a gun so you will have someone to hide behind when trouble comes." pretty much shuts up any anti.

But, to get back on topic, perhaps the owners of private property (stores, work place) will begin to change their policies because.......... I am heartened by the reaction of disgust and anger by the general public and many legislators to the left's horrible attempt to hijack the Gabriel Gifford shooting to push their own sick progressive agenda of control.... Perhaps the left has finally stepped onto a tender appendage hard enough to expose their true intent to screw the American people.

Edited to put back in half a sentence that I messed up leaving out and that without it the whole thing didn't make sense... did that make sense?

 

[TheQ]

I don't know where you work, and won't ask, but if I walked into work and they started that with me, I'd simply turn around and leave, calling a lawyer on my way. I don't know if that falls under unreasonable searches and seizures, but it sure sounds close.

The constitution only protects you against searches by the Government, not others (including your employer). You can always refuse the search and they can always fire you (at will employment).

 

[springerdave]

I recently passed up employment at a national chain autoparts store because of their "no weapons" employment policy. I now buy my parts at a different store. Even though they probably have a similar policy, it makes me "feel" better.springerdave.