Sadly, we live in a world where criminals have rights, victims have no rights and can go to jail if they defend themselves or others. All the norms have been reversed, everything seems backwards. I like to call this strange, new world, Bizarro World.
Your right to self defense
- Thread starter johngross
- Start date
Fishinfool
Member
I look at it this way - If a company wants you to stand back and not take any action while folks are robbing the place blind, I figure I am cool with that. It's just stuff, and not MY stuff.
But when the situation becomes one where I feel I may be in danger, then I reserve the right to defend myself, no matter the "policy" of some company.
Does a private company have the right to enact and enforce a policy that directly abolishes my legal rights to defend myself?
If for example, company policy was to terminate any employees who exercised their right to vote, would that fly?
Why the difference?
Larry
But when the situation becomes one where I feel I may be in danger, then I reserve the right to defend myself, no matter the "policy" of some company.
Does a private company have the right to enact and enforce a policy that directly abolishes my legal rights to defend myself?
If for example, company policy was to terminate any employees who exercised their right to vote, would that fly?
Why the difference?
Larry
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 1,777
- Reaction score
- 3,554
Last edited:
A few thoughts….
1) Larry is spot on above that while a non interference policy with shoplifters or armed robbers is fine and even a good idea, there's still a line that is often crossed where you are now faced with an imminent threat to your safety and no store policy should prevent you from defending yourself, or punish you for exercising that right.
2) By breaking the threshold and coming behind the counter the armed robber in this case also posed an imminent threat to the clerk, who is now effectively trapped behind the counter with an armed robber who is also a potential assailant.
3) I was the night manager for a summer in one of my uncles convenience stores. Manager here equaling glorified cashier who locked up at the end of the shift and took between $5-$10K to the night deposit at the bank on the way home.
Every one of the seven stores he had was robbed (some more than once) on the night shift that summer with the staff being beaten, except for the store I managed. My uncle asked me why I thought my store hadn't been robbed, particularly when it was one of the worst designed in terms of almost no outside windows other than one right by the register.
I explained that I conceal carried a 1911, but that whenever someone sketchy looking came in and appeared to be casing the business, I just lifted my shirt over the 1911 and made sure the person potentially casing the place could see it.
He wasn't pro gun, he didn't like it, but he also was smart enough to recognize it worked and was smart enough not to comment positively or negatively. If he'd have told me I could not carry a firearm in his store I would have resigned on the spot, given the totality of the circumstances.
4) I suspect the well intended, non interference, "just let the, take what they want" policy he had actually made things worse. It made all his stores soft targets (except mine, where the night manager was obviously armed and posed a bigger risk). More importantly during those robberies, it always escalated from taking what they wanted, including cigarettes behind the counter, to now that they were behind the counter they took the opportunity to turn the compliant staff into punching bags and worse for their own amusement. Intervening before it got that far might have made a difference. Or not. But that decision should have been left to the employees.
5) An essential part of leadership is knowing when you should see or hear something and when you should not. In the case of a 74 year old lady successfully defending herself against an armed robber, that manager should I have chose not to act, said nothing to corporate, and at most reminded her of the store policy and expressed relief that she was unharmed.
It's a one off event that he could have and should have overlooked.
Asking her to *apologize* to the armed robber she pushed was beyond the pale.
1) Larry is spot on above that while a non interference policy with shoplifters or armed robbers is fine and even a good idea, there's still a line that is often crossed where you are now faced with an imminent threat to your safety and no store policy should prevent you from defending yourself, or punish you for exercising that right.
2) By breaking the threshold and coming behind the counter the armed robber in this case also posed an imminent threat to the clerk, who is now effectively trapped behind the counter with an armed robber who is also a potential assailant.
3) I was the night manager for a summer in one of my uncles convenience stores. Manager here equaling glorified cashier who locked up at the end of the shift and took between $5-$10K to the night deposit at the bank on the way home.
Every one of the seven stores he had was robbed (some more than once) on the night shift that summer with the staff being beaten, except for the store I managed. My uncle asked me why I thought my store hadn't been robbed, particularly when it was one of the worst designed in terms of almost no outside windows other than one right by the register.
I explained that I conceal carried a 1911, but that whenever someone sketchy looking came in and appeared to be casing the business, I just lifted my shirt over the 1911 and made sure the person potentially casing the place could see it.
He wasn't pro gun, he didn't like it, but he also was smart enough to recognize it worked and was smart enough not to comment positively or negatively. If he'd have told me I could not carry a firearm in his store I would have resigned on the spot, given the totality of the circumstances.
4) I suspect the well intended, non interference, "just let the, take what they want" policy he had actually made things worse. It made all his stores soft targets (except mine, where the night manager was obviously armed and posed a bigger risk). More importantly during those robberies, it always escalated from taking what they wanted, including cigarettes behind the counter, to now that they were behind the counter they took the opportunity to turn the compliant staff into punching bags and worse for their own amusement. Intervening before it got that far might have made a difference. Or not. But that decision should have been left to the employees.
5) An essential part of leadership is knowing when you should see or hear something and when you should not. In the case of a 74 year old lady successfully defending herself against an armed robber, that manager should I have chose not to act, said nothing to corporate, and at most reminded her of the store policy and expressed relief that she was unharmed.
It's a one off event that he could have and should have overlooked.
Asking her to *apologize* to the armed robber she pushed was beyond the pale.
326MOD10,
In order of your comments;
1. I watched the video.
What I don't see is any video of the alleged robber behavior and actions before he entered the former employee workstation and no audio of the statements the alleged robber made during the time he was in the store.
2. If you don't work for Circle K how do you know that the management cares about the safety of it's employees? Are you a shareholder?
3. Interesting that you say fear is not a element of robbery. If fear is not a element then wouldn't it just be gifting?
The video does show that the employee was trapped in her workstation with no alternate way to get escape. You are likely a healthy male in good physical condition with some training in self-defense and experience being involved in fights or angry males. What are the same chances a elderly, weaker, unarmed senior female have defending herself successfully and avoid being harmed? The elderly are more easily injured and have a slower time recovering from injuries. A broken hip is often a two year death sentence. Her actions could be as much as a result of being in fear of her safety.
If the company is REALLY as concerned about employee safety as you claim why isn't doesn't the workstation have a locked door on it to prevent a authorized person from entering it?
Circle K is throwing the former employee under the bus. Business is all about maximizing profit and reducing loss. The company has made the decision to reduce their loses due to theft by increasing the price of their merchandise which is paid for by their customers.
Perhaps even more importantly to them is to avoid lawsuits however frivolous and without legal merit they are as lawyers and paying witnesses and employees are expensive and are time consuming. Since the former employee violated company policy they have no legal exposure when the robber (er now the victim) files lawsuit.
4. My comments about a former employer is to illustrate that in todays corporate world employees are considered to be more of drag on profits than being a asset to the business.
I happened to have experience in retail security which included being the security director so I know all of the arguments about not stopping a shoplifter/thief/robber.
In order of your comments;
1. I watched the video.
What I don't see is any video of the alleged robber behavior and actions before he entered the former employee workstation and no audio of the statements the alleged robber made during the time he was in the store.
2. If you don't work for Circle K how do you know that the management cares about the safety of it's employees? Are you a shareholder?
3. Interesting that you say fear is not a element of robbery. If fear is not a element then wouldn't it just be gifting?
The video does show that the employee was trapped in her workstation with no alternate way to get escape. You are likely a healthy male in good physical condition with some training in self-defense and experience being involved in fights or angry males. What are the same chances a elderly, weaker, unarmed senior female have defending herself successfully and avoid being harmed? The elderly are more easily injured and have a slower time recovering from injuries. A broken hip is often a two year death sentence. Her actions could be as much as a result of being in fear of her safety.
If the company is REALLY as concerned about employee safety as you claim why isn't doesn't the workstation have a locked door on it to prevent a authorized person from entering it?
Circle K is throwing the former employee under the bus. Business is all about maximizing profit and reducing loss. The company has made the decision to reduce their loses due to theft by increasing the price of their merchandise which is paid for by their customers.
Perhaps even more importantly to them is to avoid lawsuits however frivolous and without legal merit they are as lawyers and paying witnesses and employees are expensive and are time consuming. Since the former employee violated company policy they have no legal exposure when the robber (er now the victim) files lawsuit.
4. My comments about a former employer is to illustrate that in todays corporate world employees are considered to be more of drag on profits than being a asset to the business.
I happened to have experience in retail security which included being the security director so I know all of the arguments about not stopping a shoplifter/thief/robber.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 1,777
- Reaction score
- 3,554
You know I took out the part about do you even know what being a Devil's Advocate is to be nice. My mistake.
I also say repeatedly that I DON'T KNOW WHAT Cirkle K policy is.
You have a badge on your icon so I assume you know you have to meet what are elements of the crime for it to be that crime.
That is in regard to me not knowing if fear is an element of this crime.
Try not to be so angry. You also may have missed the part where I said I am not sure I agree with it but it may be okay to fite her under the law.
Have a wonderful day.
I also say repeatedly that I DON'T KNOW WHAT Cirkle K policy is.
You have a badge on your icon so I assume you know you have to meet what are elements of the crime for it to be that crime.
That is in regard to me not knowing if fear is an element of this crime.
Try not to be so angry. You also may have missed the part where I said I am not sure I agree with it but it may be okay to fite her under the law.
Have a wonderful day.
I am not angry. I just made some counterpoints to your comments or rather Circle K management position may be.
In Kansas employees can be fired without having cause. Since I don't know what Colorado laws are I didn't comment on whether she could be legally fired. As you said they may well be within their rights to fire her. I do think most observers would think her actions were reasonable and termination was extreme.
In Kansas employees can be fired without having cause. Since I don't know what Colorado laws are I didn't comment on whether she could be legally fired. As you said they may well be within their rights to fire her. I do think most observers would think her actions were reasonable and termination was extreme.
Last edited:
Same policy here in the Seattle area. My buddy just left HD because he couldn't stand standing by as people just walked out with stuff.
I have a friend that's a district manager at Home Depot. Just talked to him, he said they have over a billion dollars in theft insurance to cover anything that gets taken.
He also said they got a letter last January from the top saying they were working on a secret way to deter theft that would be implemented in all stores soon.
Bill Lear
Member
Not quite. California is trying to pass a law that prevents employers from forcing/expecting employees to act as ad hoc security forces for which they were neither hired, nor trained, nor prepared.
While we all love a feel good story about a store clerk who "defended" themselves against a robber, and family owned stores often staffed by family members are more likely to defend and attack, the minimum wage worker didn't sign on to confront potentially deadly robbers.
There is a distinction between protecting the store's assets and self-defense, and if Home Depot (example) wants to actively interdict thieves they can hire security, and in fact, businesses are free to define a store clerk's position as both security, loss prevention, and cashier as long as they are willing to pay for employees so qualified, and to create operating policies, and provide on-site training as well as mitigation strategies, but WAIT, it's SO much easier to toss the keys to an 18 year old night clerk, earning $11/hr. with the admonishment to not try to stop a thief, but also fully aware that if the store is robbed, they - the clerk will be first under suspicion, questioned, given a lie detector test, and generally made to feel responsible, and possibly fired, thus creating an implied expectation that the employee better act to stop a thief and if it goes sideways, well, the employee can be fired for not doing as instructed, or bagged and tagged for "not doing as instructed!"
For a hundred and fifty years the "wage employee's" worth to the company is exactly the wage being paid, and employers have generally benefitted from wide latitude in what they can coerce employees to do beyond the defined job for which they applied.
Contrary to the internet disinformation network, California clearly recognizes a citizens right of self defense both in the home and in the public space.
Fishinfool
Member
Remote release spring loaded trap doors located throughout the store, dropping into a pit filled with rattle snakes?.....
Larry
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,770
- Reaction score
- 31,525
While technically we still have the right to self defense, there are few politicians who actually will defend that right. IMHO and as always, shooting for SD is a last resort action and now all we can do is hope for the best afterwards.
[QUOTE=chief38;14176 shooting for SD is a last resort action.
Absoluto! During all the years I taught the laws pertaining to deadly force, I emphasized this point above all others.
I phrased it by stating at the outset that regardless of what I tell you the law allows you to do in terms of deadly force, if you can avoid it, do so. Just because you can does not mean you should.
Following retirement from LE and the later from formal academy and college teaching, I taught the state mandated CCW course. The difference here was that my classes were all non-LE. I made it clear that LE has the obligation to control criminals through arrests, which may entail use of force, up to and including deadly force. But non-LE differs. There the objective is to protect themselves or others to create an avenue of escape. When that escape opportunity presents itself, seize it. Leave it to LE to pursue the arrest and any use of force that may require.
I also discussed prevention. I told my students that an element of avoiding the necessity for deadly force is to stay out of areas known for violence.
One of my other hobbies is photography. I like to take night photographs in cities. This goes back to my attraction to my second favorite (second to westerns of course) film genre; film noir. I used to do this in San Francisco. I was always armed, and I stayed very aware of my environment. I never had a problem. Not even close. Now I won't do that. The danger is just too great. Even though I am confident I would prevail in an attempted robbery, the greater probability that I might have to use deadly force has convinced me to just not be there.
There is a cost to deadly force, even when one prevails and is determined to have acted legally.
That cost is just too great if one can avoid it.
Absoluto! During all the years I taught the laws pertaining to deadly force, I emphasized this point above all others.
I phrased it by stating at the outset that regardless of what I tell you the law allows you to do in terms of deadly force, if you can avoid it, do so. Just because you can does not mean you should.
Following retirement from LE and the later from formal academy and college teaching, I taught the state mandated CCW course. The difference here was that my classes were all non-LE. I made it clear that LE has the obligation to control criminals through arrests, which may entail use of force, up to and including deadly force. But non-LE differs. There the objective is to protect themselves or others to create an avenue of escape. When that escape opportunity presents itself, seize it. Leave it to LE to pursue the arrest and any use of force that may require.
I also discussed prevention. I told my students that an element of avoiding the necessity for deadly force is to stay out of areas known for violence.
One of my other hobbies is photography. I like to take night photographs in cities. This goes back to my attraction to my second favorite (second to westerns of course) film genre; film noir. I used to do this in San Francisco. I was always armed, and I stayed very aware of my environment. I never had a problem. Not even close. Now I won't do that. The danger is just too great. Even though I am confident I would prevail in an attempted robbery, the greater probability that I might have to use deadly force has convinced me to just not be there.
There is a cost to deadly force, even when one prevails and is determined to have acted legally.
That cost is just too great if one can avoid it.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police have no duty to protect . On what do you base the "obligation to control" assertion ?
As to C store clerks situations in general, I would not wish that job on anyone.
Not sure when you taught your classes, but the Supreme Court has made it very clear that LEO's have no obligation at all to protect any particular person by controlling any particular criminal . . .
RetCapt , I am confident you personally performed what you considered your duty admirably during your career as an LEO. I am not at all questioning your ethics or desire as a human to help others. The sad truth today is that the US Supreme court has decided there is no obligation on any LEO to protect any one individual.
All of the above referenced LEO's may need to find new careers, possibly even as C-store clerks, but none of them will be held personally accountable by the courts. None of them had any personal legal duty to do anything.
HOUSTON RICK
Member
I hope that she gets a hefty settlement, buy keep in mind your rights go out the window to a large extent once you step on your employer's property, your actions are legally no longer yours but theirs.
The precise reason why she was fired...doing nothing is a liability-based decision. The thousands of law school graduates a year need something to do. Not saying I think it's right, just saying that's the way it is. Personally, I would have dealt with the thug in a way he wouldn't soon forget.
While police have no duty to protect an individual, what the case law does state is that the police have a duty to protect the employing entity's public safety interests. These governmental entities can then direct LE to provide law enforcement services within that political jurisdiction. That is the normal, at least until recently, relationship between LE, as an agent of the employing entity, and the inhabitants.
This was the context of my telling my students of the LE obligation, rather than private persons' obligation. Thus, if a private person encounters a potential deadly force situation and can avoid that situation, they are well advised to use that opportunity to escape, rather than becoming involved.
There are numerous reasons for this, probably the most obvious being risk and then civil liability. The basis for no duty for LE to protect is sovereign immunity. Private persons do not have sovereign immunity. When I was an LEO I had sovereign immunity, even off duty, as my department had requirements in our manuals that we take action in any incident that appeared to require law enforcement intervention. That sovereign immunity ended for me the day I retired. I was aware of that.
So, if the concept of sovereign immunity is so antithetical to public safety why does it exist? The answer is liability. If there was no sovereign immunity, and thus a duty to act, any failure to do so could incur liability.
LE agencies today are short staffed, as one can read anywhere. Cops have been vilified to the extent that they have been driven off, and there are insufficient applicants coming forth. Thus fewer LEOs on the streets, and the results of this short sighted social experiment are obvious. If the numbers of LEOs on the streets in any given jurisdiction were adequate before, which in itself is questionable given normal budgetary restraints, that is not the case now. If there were a duty to act, but no one is there to carry out that duty, then without sovereign immunity the employing entity would be vulnerable to liability.
As egregious as Castle Rock v Gonzales and Deshaney v Winnebago County Dept of Social Services are, and as much as we believe there should be consequences for this inaction, without sovereign immunity the door would be open to unlimited liability. Jurisdictions without sufficient LE (whatever that may be) because they can't afford any more, would be vulnerable to lawsuits. Sovereign immunity avoids that.
While I would like to see the cases against Broward Co, Uvalde and Seattle go forward successfully, I think the chances are bleak.
As I have said earlier, LE is expensive. If LE is not going to do anything to protect the inhabitants of a jurisdiction, why do these jurisdictions go to this considerable expense? That is a huge expense if the cops are not going to do anything because they have no duty.
What jurisdictions can do is employ LE and impose on their LEOs the requirement to respond to and handle criminal situations as a condition of employment. This gets around the no duty to protect issue while still preserving sovereign immunity.
While I have enjoyed this discussion, I feel like I am starting to repeat myself. If I don't respond further that is why.
This was the context of my telling my students of the LE obligation, rather than private persons' obligation. Thus, if a private person encounters a potential deadly force situation and can avoid that situation, they are well advised to use that opportunity to escape, rather than becoming involved.
There are numerous reasons for this, probably the most obvious being risk and then civil liability. The basis for no duty for LE to protect is sovereign immunity. Private persons do not have sovereign immunity. When I was an LEO I had sovereign immunity, even off duty, as my department had requirements in our manuals that we take action in any incident that appeared to require law enforcement intervention. That sovereign immunity ended for me the day I retired. I was aware of that.
So, if the concept of sovereign immunity is so antithetical to public safety why does it exist? The answer is liability. If there was no sovereign immunity, and thus a duty to act, any failure to do so could incur liability.
LE agencies today are short staffed, as one can read anywhere. Cops have been vilified to the extent that they have been driven off, and there are insufficient applicants coming forth. Thus fewer LEOs on the streets, and the results of this short sighted social experiment are obvious. If the numbers of LEOs on the streets in any given jurisdiction were adequate before, which in itself is questionable given normal budgetary restraints, that is not the case now. If there were a duty to act, but no one is there to carry out that duty, then without sovereign immunity the employing entity would be vulnerable to liability.
As egregious as Castle Rock v Gonzales and Deshaney v Winnebago County Dept of Social Services are, and as much as we believe there should be consequences for this inaction, without sovereign immunity the door would be open to unlimited liability. Jurisdictions without sufficient LE (whatever that may be) because they can't afford any more, would be vulnerable to lawsuits. Sovereign immunity avoids that.
While I would like to see the cases against Broward Co, Uvalde and Seattle go forward successfully, I think the chances are bleak.
As I have said earlier, LE is expensive. If LE is not going to do anything to protect the inhabitants of a jurisdiction, why do these jurisdictions go to this considerable expense? That is a huge expense if the cops are not going to do anything because they have no duty.
What jurisdictions can do is employ LE and impose on their LEOs the requirement to respond to and handle criminal situations as a condition of employment. This gets around the no duty to protect issue while still preserving sovereign immunity.
While I have enjoyed this discussion, I feel like I am starting to repeat myself. If I don't respond further that is why.
Last edited:
Similar threads
