Clerk Who Defended Herself With Gun Finds Life After Circle K

[RugersGR8]

Glad the "Go Fund Me Page" and the job offer from the gun shop came through for this woman. I don't know if OKLA Circle K's have the same policies as the Circle K's in Albuquerque, but until I find out otherwise--no business with the Circle J's at Circle K.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/...urce=badaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
Clerk Who Defended Herself With Gun Finds Life After Circle K
Posted at 10:00 am on September 29, 2017
by Tom Knighton

 

[RugersGR8]

Breaking News - NM mom fired for shooting robber given $64k in donations
US NEWS
Published on Oct 1, 2017

 

[Frederick]

most corporate places have these sorts of rules. It is easy to quickly admonish them for this fact, but i would put in place the same policies if i was in their position as head of a corporation or similar situation.

When you run your own business and personally know all the employees, it's probably not as big of a deal. But when you run a business as large as Circle K, Wal-Mart, Target, 7-Eleven, etc, it's different.

There are a lot of legal, insurance and safety reasons why these strict no-gun policies are in place.

You and i, the enthusiasts, might be very safe with our firearms. But a lot of people do not take such a high interest and just pack heat 'for protection' with little interest or ability to obtain quality training or study relevant literature. When you're a massive corporation(and military guys might know what i'm talking about), you have to set everything up for the dumbest stack of bricks in your organization. otherwise it is a risk for everyone.

Realistically, your chances of an accidental discharge and potentially striking someone, yourself or damaging property are a lot higher than your chances of getting to shoot a robber. I think these risks can be lowered with training and education, but we're talking about the average permit holder.

99% of the time, the robbers just take the cash and go anyway. Bringing a gun into that situation doesn't make much sense. Give them the cash, and let insurance replace it. Have people been shot after complying? sure, but that's relatively rare.

Another thing is the liability. all those risks have to be born by the business, they're responsible for everything that goes on in there.

Dumbass cashier has an accidental discharge. the establishment is liable for that.

Cashier shoots robber who turns out to have been using a toy gun/no gun at all. Store is(stupid but true) potentially liable in some states for that. Especially in these nationwide/multi-national corporations, it's a risk they don't want to take. Cashier potentially causes deadly situation where she dies or is seriously injured. Establishment is liable. Cashier lacks common sense and does something stupid with her gun, Establishment liable.

They're not in the business of training folks and don't know what risks they're adopting by letting employees carry guns. That's a lot of risk and liability. There are usually rules in these places about how much money can be in the drawer. maybe ~50-75 bucks or something. Not much. Insurance will replace all of it if they're robbed.

a lawsuit could potentially be millions of dollars per incident. Just bad business.

The business would probably also have to license and insure employees if they were going to permit them to have firearms. I think their insurance costs would actually significantly rise. might not seem like a lot, but in a competitive business it could drive them out of the market.

if you want companies to allow concealed firearms on their premises, you'd have to pretty much drastically reform liability, insurance laws and so on in order for it to make sense from the corporate point of view.

In the end, Cost/Benefit doesn't add up. The benefit of allowing employees to defend themselves with firearms is a lot higher than banning them.

 

[Mos Eisley]

Well, she probably has 3 years of Circle K pay now in that account. She should relax and try to find a really good job.

 

[Pokinfun]

Hopefully, she uses the money for college or for vocational training, that way she will never have to work at a convenience store again. When my wife was in college she got robbed while working at a convenience store. I'm glad she just gave him the money.

 

[emapples]

most corporate places have these sorts of rules. It is easy to quickly admonish them for this fact, but i would put in place the same policies if i was in their position as head of a corporation or similar situation.

When you run your own business and personally know all the employees, it's probably not as big of a deal. But when you run a business as large as Circle K, Wal-Mart, Target, 7-Eleven, etc, it's different.

There are a lot of legal, insurance and safety reasons why these strict no-gun policies are in place.

You and i, the enthusiasts, might be very safe with our firearms. But a lot of people do not take such a high interest and just pack heat 'for protection' with little interest or ability to obtain quality training or study relevant literature. When you're a massive corporation(and military guys might know what i'm talking about), you have to set everything up for the dumbest stack of bricks in your organization. otherwise it is a risk for everyone.

Realistically, your chances of an accidental discharge and potentially striking someone, yourself or damaging property are a lot higher than your chances of getting to shoot a robber. I think these risks can be lowered with training and education, but we're talking about the average permit holder.

99% of the time, the robbers just take the cash and go anyway. Bringing a gun into that situation doesn't make much sense. Give them the cash, and let insurance replace it. Have people been shot after complying? sure, but that's relatively rare.

Another thing is the liability. all those risks have to be born by the business, they're responsible for everything that goes on in there.

Dumbass cashier has an accidental discharge. the establishment is liable for that.

Cashier shoots robber who turns out to have been using a toy gun/no gun at all. Store is(stupid but true) potentially liable in some states for that. Especially in these nationwide/multi-national corporations, it's a risk they don't want to take. Cashier potentially causes deadly situation where she dies or is seriously injured. Establishment is liable. Cashier lacks common sense and does something stupid with her gun, Establishment liable.

They're not in the business of training folks and don't know what risks they're adopting by letting employees carry guns. That's a lot of risk and liability. There are usually rules in these places about how much money can be in the drawer. maybe ~50-75 bucks or something. Not much. Insurance will replace all of it if they're robbed.

a lawsuit could potentially be millions of dollars per incident. Just bad business.

The business would probably also have to license and insure employees if they were going to permit them to have firearms. I think their insurance costs would actually significantly rise. might not seem like a lot, but in a competitive business it could drive them out of the market.

if you want companies to allow concealed firearms on their premises, you'd have to pretty much drastically reform liability, insurance laws and so on in order for it to make sense from the corporate point of view.

In the end, Cost/Benefit doesn't add up. The benefit of allowing employees to defend themselves with firearms is a lot higher than banning them.

I can’t disagree with your reasoning, it’s all perfectly logical. BUT it’s also a green light for thieves to rob stores especially knowing the policy is to just give the money up and not to fight it in any way. These situations are the last bastion of deterrent unfortunately.....I guess we could put them in bullet proof boxes

 

[lee1000]

most corporate places have these sorts of rules. It is easy to quickly admonish them for this fact, but i would put in place the same policies if i was in their position as head of a corporation or similar situation.

When you run your own business and personally know all the employees, it's probably not as big of a deal. But when you run a business as large as Circle K, Wal-Mart, Target, 7-Eleven, etc, it's different.

There are a lot of legal, insurance and safety reasons why these strict no-gun policies are in place.

You and i, the enthusiasts, might be very safe with our firearms. But a lot of people do not take such a high interest and just pack heat 'for protection' with little interest or ability to obtain quality training or study relevant literature. When you're a massive corporation(and military guys might know what i'm talking about), you have to set everything up for the dumbest stack of bricks in your organization. otherwise it is a risk for everyone.

Realistically, your chances of an accidental discharge and potentially striking someone, yourself or damaging property are a lot higher than your chances of getting to shoot a robber. I think these risks can be lowered with training and education, but we're talking about the average permit holder.

99% of the time, the robbers just take the cash and go anyway. Bringing a gun into that situation doesn't make much sense. Give them the cash, and let insurance replace it. Have people been shot after complying? sure, but that's relatively rare.

Another thing is the liability. all those risks have to be born by the business, they're responsible for everything that goes on in there.

Dumbass cashier has an accidental discharge. the establishment is liable for that.

Cashier shoots robber who turns out to have been using a toy gun/no gun at all. Store is(stupid but true) potentially liable in some states for that. Especially in these nationwide/multi-national corporations, it's a risk they don't want to take. Cashier potentially causes deadly situation where she dies or is seriously injured. Establishment is liable. Cashier lacks common sense and does something stupid with her gun, Establishment liable.

They're not in the business of training folks and don't know what risks they're adopting by letting employees carry guns. That's a lot of risk and liability. There are usually rules in these places about how much money can be in the drawer. maybe ~50-75 bucks or something. Not much. Insurance will replace all of it if they're robbed.

a lawsuit could potentially be millions of dollars per incident. Just bad business.

The business would probably also have to license and insure employees if they were going to permit them to have firearms. I think their insurance costs would actually significantly rise. might not seem like a lot, but in a competitive business it could drive them out of the market.

if you want companies to allow concealed firearms on their premises, you'd have to pretty much drastically reform liability, insurance laws and so on in order for it to make sense from the corporate point of view.

In the end, Cost/Benefit doesn't add up. The benefit of allowing employees to defend themselves with firearms is a lot higher than banning them.

I'm just glad there are people out there who willing to violate these policies.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[John6185]

You have to ask yourself the question, "If I were in a situation such as their clerk what would I do?" The guy is pointing a loaded guy and his finger is on the trigger and you have access to a gun-what would you do? I believe I'd defend myself rather than die due to some fool with a loaded gun pointed at me.

 

[Annie]

I can see both sides of this, too. I also, never gone to a job unarmed, since I had a client threaten to meet me in the parking garage at 7 some evening when I was leaving the office. Clearly he had been watching me to know that I left at 7 every evening, not the 5 or 5:30 everyone else was leaving at.

All of those offices had strict no firearms policies. What they didn't know didn't hurt me. If I'd gotten fired for defending myself, well, I would have been okay with that. Getting fired beats getting the **** beat out of you every time, IMHO.

 

[Frederick]

I can see both sides of this, too. I also, never gone to a job unarmed, since I had a client threaten to meet me in the parking garage at 7 some evening when I was leaving the office. Clearly he had been watching me to know that I left at 7 every evening, not the 5 or 5:30 everyone else was leaving at.

All of those offices had strict no firearms policies. What they didn't know didn't hurt me. If I'd gotten fired for defending myself, well, I would have been okay with that. Getting fired beats getting the **** beat out of you every time, IMHO.

if that's a risk you're willing to take, go for it hoss. But i still think from a corporate point of view, while i believe these policies royally suck, they make sense from business' standpoint.

You have to ask yourself the question, "If I were in a situation such as their clerk what would I do?" The guy is pointing a loaded guy and his finger is on the trigger and you have access to a gun-what would you do? I believe I'd defend myself rather than die due to some fool with a loaded gun pointed at me.

this is just my opinion, but it's generally a bad idea to pull a gun on someone who is already drawn on you. if the gangbanger has a slow reaction time, you might get lucky. But if the gangbanger is a killer, that half second it takes to draw is enough for him to put rounds on target. You have to wait for a good opportunity. If you pay close attention to your surroundings(which is impossible to do 100% of the time i think), you would hopefully notice his behaviour and prepare accordingly. It's a risky proposition, but i've got no sympathy for dead thugs.