Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (75429)	10/7/2004 8:14:44 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793879

i hear ya the world hears ya.. but if managers overall started trying to take out robbers with gun more deaths would occur.. it happens everyday here in philly.. each morning there is a small store where the owner had a gun fight or resisted some kids and is dead. more often more deaths or injuries fighting vs letting the person take whatever they want and leave. if it's your store , you can do what you want. if you work for some one else , you do what you were hired for and instructed on how to perform.. otherwise subject yourself to termination.

To: unclewest who wrote (75429)	10/7/2004 8:57:36 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793879

If anyone wishes to submit a comment about the Long John Silver armed robbery and assault incident and the firing of their hero. You can use this E-mail address. yum.investor@yum.com The company owns the following restaurant chains: Long John Silver, Pizza Hut, A&W, Taco Bell and KFC. uw

To: unclewest who wrote (75429)	10/7/2004 10:05:33 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793879

Policies like that are generally provoked by liability lawsuits. There were a couple of recent cases in California where a customer injured by criminals during a robbery sued the establishment on a negligence theory. Without getting into the intricacies of imposition of liability for third party criminal acts, these cases basically came down to the court throwing them out. Basically, gave the judicial imprimatur to a policy against intervention to prevent robbery, etc. I suspect what happened in the Long John case is a misapplication of valid company policy. The policy is to tell employees to cooperate in a robbery attempt and not to take heroic measures to thwart it. That's a good and smart policy. It is misapplied here when a person defends himself, rightfully or wrongly, against perceived threat, and is then fired for violating the policy. I'd probably take the fired employee's case...I'm pretty creative:-)