Yes all the rights and equally all the RESONSIBILITY. RIGHT?
[Broken External Image] That's pretty much what you said earlier...
Maybe you can explain how companies are suppose to make every workplace safe and secure? Can you explain what this company did that made it negligent?
If I worked at Walmart, what level of security should they provide to make me safe and secure? What if a person walked in and went to the back of the store and started shooting people, would Walmart be liable because they didn't have multiple security guards everywhere in the store?
Banks usually have armed off duty or retired LEOs and they still get robbed and people die during robberies. At what point do you start blaming the person who committed the crime and realize chit happens and you can't protect everyone every time...
And when every company starts having security guards posted throughout their place of business, who do you think is going to be paying for this service?
At what level will a company be secure and safe as to not be liable for frivolous lawsuits filed by scum lawyers?
Just some thoughts....
If you use this way of thinking you open the possibility of the government being responsible if something happens while I'm in a Federal Building...
You also have the right to seek another job and find a company that will allow you to carry on site...
There is no clear answer on this.. People want protection.. But they don't want government intrusion either.. And they want their property rights respected as well...
I know if the government to me I had to allow concealed citizens in my place of business or my house, I would be pissed...
By that standard, if a company prohibits firearms as a "security measure" and that "security measure" fails to prevent someone from being shot on their property, they could be held liable.
By that standard, if a company prohibits firearms as a "security measure" and that "security measure" fails to prevent someone from being shot on their property, they could be held liable.
Upon this we agree. I was merely pointing out how far that particular court took it to show the justification that it may not be in the best interests of an establishment to take the security measures we desire.
/me wonders how many Google'd what I referenced in my previous post about JB...
[Broken External Image] That's pretty much what you said earlier...
No, it's not even close. I would not hold the company liable for someone shooting them. I would hold the company liable for implementing false security measures (see above post) that simultaneously failed to protect me and prevented me from protecting myself.
Maybe you can explain how companies are suppose to make every workplace safe and secure? Can you explain what this company did that made it negligent?
They can't. See why preventing their employees and patrons from the measures to protect themselves is instilling a false sense of security? If I fail to protect myself, then it's on me. If you assume the responsibility for my safety (and as a publicly inviting property, you do to some extent) you assume the risk of your failures. That's why Wal-Mart and a huge number of other public places are sued every year when someone gets hurt on their property, if it's an issue caused by something within the property owners control.
If I worked at Walmart, what level of security should they provide to make me safe and secure? What if a person walked in and went to the back of the store and started shooting people, would Walmart be liable because they didn't have multiple security guards everywhere in the store?
Can a Wal-Mart worker clean up every spill before someone can slip and fall because of it? Can they have someone with a mop posted on every aisle? No. Yet they get sued for slip & falls all the time./COLOR]
Banks usually have armed off duty or retired LEOs and they still get robbed and people die during robberies. At what point do you start blaming the person who committed the crime and realize chit happens and you can't protect everyone every time...
You always blame the person responsible for the act criminally, but you sue the company that failed to take adequate measures to protect you from said person. IMO, any company that allows patrons and employees to CCW is stating that you are responsible for defending yourself here. Any company that prohibits CCW is saying "We'll protect you while you're here".
And when every company starts having security guards posted throughout their place of business, who do you think is going to be paying for this service?
We all will. Which is why it's better for the company to advise patrons and employees that they're responsible for their own security, rather than assuming the mantle of responsibility when they are not capable of perfoming and have no intentions of doing so.
At what level will a company be secure and safe as to not be liable for frivolous lawsuits filed by scum lawyers?
When the US becomes a dictatorship and the civil court system. That's also when scum companies will be secure and safe from righteous lawsuits!
Just some thoughts....
My comments in blue.
The SCOTUS has already ruled that the .gov is not responsible for the security of individual citizens against criminal acts. In other words, you are responsible for your own security. Private entities enjoy no such immunity privileges.
In other words, you're only truly screwed in a government facility.
Similar threads
