I think they should pay for all medical and rehab cost also pay his salary. That would be nice just saying.
Injured guard suing FEDEX
- Thread starter B. Byrd
- Start date
I find it amazing and stupid that companies will not allow armed guards to protect their employees,who are PEOPLE,but have no problem allowing armed guards protect MONEY.You have armed guards on armored trucks,in banks,etc,for the main purpose of protecting money.I will bet that the Fedex guard was replaced with another unarmed guard. I was once offered a job at a major GA.business as a security guard. When I was told that it was strictly an unarmed position,I declined,and made my point as to why. As in "the shooter has to get by me first,and you want me to be unarmed?"I was then told that,when the president of this firm comes to visit,he brings armed bodyguards.DUHHH.
I may get fired for defending myself but I have to be alive to get fired. Piss on ANY company that tells me I can't be armed. If you don't have a metal detector and the LAW to enforce it I'M armed. Period.
Had a guy on here that worked for me for a while . He carried 24/7 and was well trained ... made me feel safe and clients had no issues as well.
I worked at a chain convenience store years ago, there was no weapons not allowed but employees weren't allowed to carry and could be fired for it. The manager knew I had my licence (we were friendly and chatted about guns a lot) he told me if I was ever "caught" with it or had to use it I would be fired and there was nothing he could do about it. But since I was on third shift he wouldn't blame me if I did. He just couldn't recommend it or approve of it
in the companies eyes armed and trained guards cost more money and increase the insurance mod rates and bonding thats why you get the 8 dollar an hr barny fifes that wouldnt get out of the console chair to do any thing out of range of throwing keys and a flash light
That's because responsibility is fungible. You can always pass the buck. Companies don't want to get sued for a licensed, armed person actually having to protect themselves or others since the scumbags have learned to sue the deepest pockets rather than be held accountable for their own actions. It really comes down to lawyers. And I despise lawyers for what they twist common sense into. They are the real murderers of America. People who can twist rationale into knots and make the guilty the victim should be shot WITH the guilty. In fact, a proper modification to our legal system should be that lawyers suffer the same fate as their clients...or as the victims of their clients might even be MORE appropriate.
FedEx should have covered every cost associated with this and now they will pay way more...
you would think that they would do the right thing and help the guy out,but i,m sure they are waiting on the lawyers to draw up the legal papers for settlement claim and getting ready to do the legal tango in court
Personally, I dont think you have the right to deny anyone the ability to protect themselves and others. So called "property rights" do not trump self defense. Perhaps legally, but not morally.
Also, a big company should take all steps necessary to prevent this kind of thing. Having armed guards would at least give the employees a fighting chance. Unarmed guards are really no deterrent in a situation like this. "Gun Free Zones" just create a safe hunting ground for the crazies. The only one protected by this company rule was the shooter.
I hope he is successful with the suit.
Also, a big company should take all steps necessary to prevent this kind of thing. Having armed guards would at least give the employees a fighting chance. Unarmed guards are really no deterrent in a situation like this. "Gun Free Zones" just create a safe hunting ground for the crazies. The only one protected by this company rule was the shooter.
I hope he is successful with the suit.
