re: Taco Bell workerS kill armed robber - MAGA

I think you're just failing to see the reason why that's in the handbook. Hint: it's for legal and financial liability. Am I arguing for this as the pinnacle of morality and justice? No. But that's the way our legal system is set up.

quote:

---

Aside from the fact that the post you even copied said plant, not cubical farm (not sure why you just made that up)

---

There are no offices in your plant? Does it really matter?

quote:

---

What happens when I catch someone innocent with a stray and I'm not supposed to have a gun on me?

---

In the incredibly rare circumstance? The one that happens an incredibly few times despite how common these types of events are? You aren't mag dumping into a crowd unlike NYPD so I don't think you'll have much to worry about there.

quote:

---

You aren't mag dumping into a crowd unlike NYPD so I don't think you'll have much to worry about there.

---

Yeah, nothing like three different employees firing at two suspects inside a restaurant. A stray round hitting someone could never happen.

Clearly, considering you provided zero context

quote:

---

Yeah, nothing like three different employees firing at two suspects inside a restaurant. A stray round hitting someone could never happen.

---

Didn't happen here. Didn't happen in the hundreds of similar stories that could be posted in its place. So it seems your imagination of the probability involved is a bit far fetched compared to the statistics.

quote:

---

You're either an awesome troll that kept me entertained while trying to fall asleep or a complete moron.

---

You're an imbecile that doesn't have a clue about the realities of what happens in these cases.

quote:

---

I hope I never have to shoot you

---

You'd probably screw up and shoot yourself, much to all our benefit.

When bullets hit bystanders

Enjoy the read Rambo

quote:

---

Enjoy the read Rambo

---

You obviously didn't get far into it yourself. Typical of someone rushing in with their first-page Google result.

quote:

---

Mr. El-Amin, a food-truck owner and father of three, was struck in the neck after several gunmen suddenly began firing from opposite sides of the court. Four others were wounded.

She also cannot comprehend why the gunmen fired into a crowd of innocent people.

---

quote:

---

Several men burst around a corner, carrying semiautomatic handguns. Gang members seeking revenge, they had slipped through a two-foot hole in the back fence of the 400-unit complex, said Detective Christopher Lamaine of the Bridgeport Police Department.

But in the dark, they got turned around.

“They shot at the wrong parking lot,” he said. “Their targets were in the next parking lot over.”

---

quote:

---

A gang member had burst into the shop with an AK-47, aiming for a rival in a nearby chair.

Instead, he shot and killed Keith Liggins, 41, who was cutting the man’s hair. Another bullet shattered Mr. Harris’s knee. Two other men were injured; the gunman’s alleged accomplice was wounded when the target fired back, the police said.

---

quote:

---

But there was no fight. Instead, one or more men pulled out nine-millimeter handguns, the police said. Fifteen shots were fired in a matter of seconds.

---

quote:

---

That evening, he went to an outdoor motorcycle exhibition. Among hundreds of onlookers were two rival bands of teenagers, with at least four handguns.

Caught in the crossfire between them, Monk died from a bullet to the head. Two other bystanders were wounded. The Newark police charged two teenagers, 16 and 19, with murder. Three other teenagers, including one who was wounded in the gunfight, were charged with weapons offenses.

---

Not a single story involves anyone acting in self-defense like the Taco Bell employees. In fact, in one of your linked stories a victim shot back without hitting anyone but the attacker. There is a common theme in your link, but it seems it has more to do with tPOS's being tPOS's than anything to do with making a relevant point to what I'm discussing.

quote:

---

Because a rather elementary understanding of this subject matter shows that the employees "getting froggy" and shooting an armed attacker

---

That's where you misread me. I'm talking about getting froggy, even during an armed robbery, and causing damage to a third party. Again, this is exactly why these policies exist in the first place. The liability assumed by a business in such a case could be incredibly damaging, whether or not someone is justified in responding to a robbery.