Local gas chain is looking for employees who carry guns.

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Customers and employees can carry in any legal state, with proper standing as long as the company doesn’t prohibit doing so.

And many do prohibit employees and customers from carrying. This company is taking a pro 2A stance and I commend them for it.

 

[jmorris]

I was asked by a friend of mine to come help him out and I told him I didn’t think I would be a good fit, because the “no firearms” sign excluded me (didn’t bother to point out that it was meaningless, legally where we were at) he said that was for “other folks”.

I think in today’s world it’s pretty important to support folks that support you. I guess an anti gun gas station thread might be appropriate about now...

 

[Wanderling]

FWIW Quick Trip is headquartered out of Tulsa and has plenty of resources. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a larger legal department than the city and or local police union. On top of that they are probably just as politically connected as the local police department. When you're one of the largest tax payers and employers in the area it's quite a big difference from John Q Public. I'd also assume they have discussed the arraignment with the local officials and they probably have some type of insurance in place for these employees. Multi-billion dollar organizations tend to fully vet ideas like this.

In an event of a shooting that large legal department will be first and foremost protecting the corporation.

And “some kind of insurance” is not a guarantee of anything, as it is also there to first and foremost protect the corporation.

Let’s say you have Ferguson #2 type situation, a highly politicized shooting with big mouth demagogue politicians and media declaring guilt without a trial, and angry mob threatening to burn down the stores, what are the odds that the corporation would be willing to take a very expensive and bad PR moral stand and get behind their $35 /hr lowly employee, vs that they will throw him to the wolves ?

No freaking way would I play rent-a-cop on behalf of some business, ever.

 

[Wanderling]

And many do prohibit employees and customers from carrying. This company is taking a pro 2A stance and I commend them for it.

To me it sounds like they are getting armed security on the cheap and set their employees up for most of the liability.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

To me it sounds like they are getting armed security on the cheap and set their employees up for most of the liability.

Or maybe they are trying to put word out that their stores are not easy targets like the ones with the no weapons allowed signs on the door.

 

[Wanderling]

Or maybe they are trying to put word out that their stores are not easy targets like the ones with the no weapons allowed signs on the door.

We’ll see what happens if their employee shoots someone and the media and the politicians explode in a frenzy like it did a couple years ago, and there’s no 100% absolutely ironclad evidence. Would they spend millions defending that employee and risking getting their stores burned, or would they give him a pat on the back and a kick in the butt, and try and minimize the damages ?

 

[jmorris]

Yeah, agree and that leads them to lawsuits from both sides but it’s not like that is anything new..,

 

[Wanderling]

Yeah, agree and that leads them to lawsuits from both sides but it’s not like that is anything new..,

Well, the point is, they are not just being 2A friendly, they are actively encouraging their employees to put themselves in physical and legal jeopardy on company’s behalf, with very dubious protection. This is rather new / uncommon.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

So... Did the two gals on the right learn that in class? We got two people with three fingers on the trigger!

I'm not accountable for the two girls on the right and I'm not accountable for what they may or may not have learned in their CHP class. I know my CHP class was pretty worthless even though it met the state requirements

 

[Trunk Monkey]

In an event of a shooting that large legal department will be first and foremost protecting the corporation.

And “some kind of insurance” is not a guarantee of anything, as it is also there to first and foremost protect the corporation.

Let’s say you have Ferguson #2 type situation, a highly politicized shooting with big mouth demagogue politicians and media declaring guilt without a trial, and angry mob threatening to burn down the stores, what are the odds that the corporation would be willing to take a very expensive and bad PR moral stand and get behind their $35 /hr lowly employee, vs that they will throw him to the wolves ?

No freaking way would I play rent-a-cop on behalf of some business, ever.

I would be willing to bet you that your average armed security guard in Oklahoma makes 15 bucks an hour. I can also tell you that for every security company I've ever worked for the unofficial policy was pretty much if you ever drew your gun regardless of the reason you were unemployed the instant it cleared the holster.

So if my working conditions really aren't going to change I'd rather get paid 35 bucks an hour than 15 bucks an hour

 

[jmorris]

Well, the point is, they are not just being 2A friendly, they are actively encouraging their employees to put themselves in physical and legal jeopardy on company’s behalf, with very dubious protection.

I have a problem with this attitude. How is this different than a company putting out a sign that says “hiring drivers”?

It will put you at greater risk of getting into accidents, traffic tickets, not to mention some States even have laws that affect CDL holders differently than normal drivers license holders. That seems like an employer much more directly putting an employee into legal/physical danger. Statistics prove this as well.

Not to mention, what if we bring in LEO’s I to the conversation. Not only are they taking on all of the “on the road” pitfalls but they also have folks trying to kill them and in many places these days other Government officials that are actively trying to harm them or otherwise put them in jeopardy.

Heck, I have a problem with a “no firearms allowed” signs, I think they put everyone that abides by them in jeopardy. Just adding fish to the barrel...

 

[mgresh]

We’ll see what happens if their employee shoots someone and the media and the politicians explode in a frenzy like it did a couple years ago, and there’s no 100% absolutely ironclad evidence. Would they spend millions defending that employee and risking getting their stores burned, or would they give him a pat on the back and a kick in the butt, and try and minimize the damages ?

The employee would be defended by the companies insurance policy. The insurance company has a duty to defend the employee. The employee is an insured by definition in the policy. The company cannot choose 'not to defend' the employee. The media, politicians, public perception have nothing to do with it. A company of that size would have a robust policy in place.

As for the issue in general, I don't see any reason for an employee having the duty to protect a cash register and/or convenience store items. No way I get into a shoot out for a person trying to steal what will likely be relatively small amounts of cash or merchandise.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

The employee would be defended by the companies insurance policy. The insurance company has a duty to defend the employee. The employee is an insured by definition in the policy. The company cannot choose 'not to defend' the employee. The media, politicians, public perception have nothing to do with it. A company of that size would have a robust policy in place.

As for the issue in general, I don't see any reason for an employee having the duty to protect a cash register and/or convenience store items. No way I get into a shoot out for a person trying to steal what will likely be relatively small amounts of cash or merchandise.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if it's primarily as a deterrent. OK use of force law probably precludes lethal force for defense of property, so really, corporate policy is still probably to hand over the cash. The armed employee is probably there as a deterrent and a last-ditch defense against violent attacks.

 

[P89DCSS]

Hmmmm, internet lawyer with nothing on the line vs QT's highly paid corporate lawyers and outside law firms answering to QT's CEO/Board. That's a tough call.....

 

[Wanderling]

Hmmmm, internet lawyer with nothing on the line vs QT's highly paid corporate lawyers and outside law firms answering to QT's CEO/Board. That's a tough call.....

These highly paid corporate lawyers are there to protect the company, not an employee.

 

[Guitarmike]

The employee would be defended by the companies insurance policy. The insurance company has a duty to defend the employee. The employee is an insured by definition in the policy. The company cannot choose 'not to defend' the employee. The media, politicians, public perception have nothing to do with it. A company of that size would have a robust policy in place.

As for the issue in general, I don't see any reason for an employee having the duty to protect a cash register and/or convenience store items. No way I get into a shoot out for a person trying to steal what will likely be relatively small amounts of cash or merchandise.

I doubt the company wants anyone to be hurt or killed over money/stuff they sell. Besides the deterent effect, if something does go sideways trained and armed employees potentially requiring legal help are better than untrained and dead ones.

 

[bearcreek]

I don't disagree. I was only speaking to the idea of risking your life for a certain amount of money.

Lot's of jobs have that risk. Many blue collar jobs have a higher risk factor than police work actually. My industry, tree removal and logging, trades places every so often with commercial fishing as the most dangerous profession in the country. Police and security guards aren't even in the top ten.