...that the shooter broke the company's "No Guns on Company Property" policy? (I mean, in addition to various laws against things like murder and whatnot.) I'm not 100% sure they have such a policy, having noodled around the company website and not found any employee handbook stuff in the publicly-accessible areas, but it's a fairly safe bet that the handbook includes the usual corporatese boilerplate about "commitment to a safe workplace", a commitment obviously not shared by one of the employees, at least.
They should write his corpse's ass up for that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Well, OBVIOUSLY the key driver that MADE the shootings happen is the fact that he was working the graveyard shift. We should ban them immediately since they OBVIOUSLY cause people to go mad and shoot people.
Or, perhaps his supervisor, with whom the shooter had "had words", has (had?) EDD and was unable to calm his agitated subordinate. We should require mandatory EDD screenings for every level of management at every business so we can ensure that this NEVER happens again.
"It appears the shooting was random at this time," Henderson police Lt. David Piller said.
huh? then why wasn't he blazing away on the commute back from his home? what a dumbass, inaccurate, inflammatory comment.
midnight shift at the sugar mill, i was armed, and i don't even know what the company policy was.
jtc
Incidents like this ratchet up the paranoia of faculty here at IUPUI; the idea being if students are allowed to carry on campus they'll be more likely to shoot someone for giving them a "D" or some such thing. They don't see the other side of the coin in that some big burly student could beat them into a coma over getting that "D" before any armed campus policeman or policewoman would arrive.
I don’t mean to be insensitive, but this was in Kentucky. Where were the “sheepdogs”?
Clearly, we haven’t reached the ‘critical mass’ of concealed-carriers required to deter and/or stop this sort of thing.
Granted, most corporatized workplaces have a ‘no-guns’ policy. Since that policy exists to immunize the employer from lawsuits and has little or nothing to do with employee safety, I would bet the overwhelming majority are like my employer: The policy is on the books and employees have to sign a statement acknowledging that they’ve read, understand and agree to abide by the policy, but we haven’t had a single question, much less a search or an ‘incident’ in the decade-plus since the policy was adopted.
While the consequences of violating said policy can be severe (“…disciplinary action, up to and including termination…”) are our lives not worth more than our jobs?
Work to pass Gun-Free Zone liability laws in your state.
It is my understanding that the employee handbook isn't seen by the employee until after the start of employment, and is considered an "internal document" not fit for consumption by the general public.
And most companies have one form or another of a no-weapons policy. I think my workplace bans anything that was designed to inflict harm on another human.
I have no idea how the on-site cafeteria staff does their work without knives.
I suspect that the corporate lawyers have never wondered why two sharpened metal blades joined in the middle is not a weapon, while one sharpened metal blade inside a folding case is...since every desk has a pair of scissors, but pocket-knives are technically outlawed.
At my little wind-up toy of a college, we had a disgruntled student come into class one Saturday morning and beat the teacher senseless with a golf club. Unarmed campus security did what they could, which was not much. No weapons permitted on campus, immediate termination offense. We make exception for off-duty police taking classes.
It would be most beneficial if the next of kin of those shot were to sue the employer for having a "no guns" rule and failing to properly defend anyone thereby disarmed. It's past time for it to be established that if you post your site as "gun free" then you assume responsibility for the well being of everybody on that site.
I just saw an ABC news story that said the shooter kept the gun in his car. The initial story I read said he went home to get his gun. My MSM bias sensor is tingling. Apparently he called his girlfriend 2 hours before the shooting and said he was going to kill his boss. Did it take him 2 hours to go to the parking-lot and get his gun? Saying the gun was in the car gives aid and comfort to the anti-gunners, as legislation to let people keep guns in cars at work is moving across the country.
On a side note, and trying no to give the idea away to Google, this happened not to far from Louisville. I have a very bad feeling that some one, say Michael Moore, is going to try to link the shooting to a certain annual event held there recently by a large origination. Just a feeling.
I am liking the idea of placing liability were it belongs on the employers no gun policy. I have seen this elswere on the net. How does one start a movement? Don't say push harder.
Now MSNBC said he went home. I still think this “gun in the car story” was bias aimed toward the many parking lot bills.
Post a Comment