Glen Burnie Pizza Hut Demotes Driver For Defending Himself

[Baltimatt]

They caught three of them, do you want to live in fantasy land like spot72 and pretend that they were 5 rich white kids from the suburbs jacking up this pizza driver?
Robbing the pizza guy is a ghetto thing to do, since every time i read about a pizza guy or cab driver gets robbed its by a black male suspect is it such a stretch to assume the 5 juvies that robbed this pizza hut driver were black?

Uhh, this happened in the suburbs. Also, I have news for you. Not all white people are rich. Why are you creating a false dichotomy?

Also, you posted as a fact they were black. They very well may be, but unless you have inside information, it is not a given.

[demopublican]

There are ghettos in the burbs. And they don't have to be African American.

I guess it depends on who defines the word.

How about Pioneer City? That is in the burbs and that is ghetto as hell.

[buzzthefuzz]

Unbelievable. Scratch Pizza Hut off my list.

Ditto!

[Wizard777]

This is what I have a problem with.

but Sam was demoted for violating a company policy on carrying weapons.

Sam was not carrying a "weapon." He was carrying a tent pole which is not a weapon. However, just like anything else in existence, it does have tool/weapons applications. In this instance he used it as an improvised weapon is self defense. In the kitchen of most Pizza establishments they have a Paddle that is used to remove Pizza's from the oven. That too is a weapon under their very loose and vague definition of a weapon. I assume that there are no knives of any kind at Pizza Hut. They too are a weapon. If someone picks up a cash register and hits a robber over the head with it. That too is a weapon.

The driver was assaulted and has a right to defend himself. The Company cannot rightly expect employees to defy the human instinct of self preservation. If they do then that's something worthy of a demonstration by company executives. The executives should have to demonstrate to new hires how to offer no resistence as someone beats, rapes or murders you. I would like to see that one. Especially considering that executives hire big, ugly and well armed guys like myself to ensure they are never subjected to kind of treatment at any time for any reason. So a demotion over an improvised weapon to fend off an assault is patently ridiculous.

That leaves just one thing the assault it's self. I have just one question about that. Did this assault occur before the demand for money or after the demand as retaliation for noncompliance? It it came after the demand for money then he's lucky a demotion was all he got. If I were their Security Consultant I would recommend termination of employment. With a speech about how they are lucky their life wasn't terminated. Today you are just losing your job. That day you could have lost your life. That is an entirely unacceptable loss to the company. The first line of self defense is compliance with demands for company money or assets. It's not your money or assets and defending them doesn't make you a hero. It makes you a fool for placing yourself in harms way to defend something that is not yours and so easily replaceable. Uses of gratuitous violence in advance of a demand or after compliance with the demand is a different story where compliance has been proved an ineffective defense and then other forms of resonable self defense and even use of improvised weapons are entirely proper.