Pizza Hut Driver Fired for Defending Self!

[Dali Llama]

PIZZA HUT DRIVER FIRED FOR CCW & DEFENDING HIMSELF; MAY FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES

A pizza delivery driver who fatally shot a man he said brandished a gun and tried to rob him was fired from his job and could face criminal charges.

Ronald B. Honeycutt shot Jerome Brown, 20, who was pronounced dead a short time after the late Monday shooting.

"I'm just satisfied it was him and not me," said Honeycutt, 38, of Carmel.

Honeycutt said he was returning to his van after making a delivery at an apartment on the city's far east side when he heard someone say "Hey, my guy" and turned to see a man approaching with a gun.

He said he pulled out his 9 mm pistol and fired all 15 rounds at close range.

Marion County Sheriff's Capt. Phil Burton said no witnesses had been found to the fatal shooting of Brown, who suffered multiple gunshot wounds.

Burton said investigators would present their findings to county prosecutors, who will decide whether any charges will be filed in the case.

After shooting Brown, Honeycutt said he picked up Brown's gun because he feared he had an accomplice, and returned to a Pizza Hut store, where detectives later met him.

He said Pizza Hut fired him for violating a company policy against carrying a gun, which he was licensed to carry.

A Pizza Hut spokeswoman, Patty Sullivan, confirmed that company policy includes a ban on carrying weapons.

Honeycutt said he had been delivering pizza for 20 years and always carried a gun.

"It's a fair job, but I don't plan on dying for it," he said.

Anyone up for a Pizza Hut boycott, ask Dali Llama??

[Squirrelsaurus Rex]

...fired all 15 rounds at close range.

15?  Who was his attacker, King Kong?  If he practiced more often, he probably could have changed magazines and continued firing before the guy hit the ground.  :blaster:

[Dali Llama]

...fired all 15 rounds at close range.

15?  Who was his attacker, King Kong?  

Dali Llama say honorable pizza delivery employee apparently righteously aware that dead men don't come back for more bovine excrement later, and that more rounds penetrating more vital organs more likely to ensure deserved death of nogoodnik. :grin:  :grin:  :grin:

[Thomas Krupinski]

...fired all 15 rounds at close range.

15?  Who was his attacker, King Kong?  

Dali Llama say honorable pizza delivery employee apparently righteously aware that dead men don't come back for more bovine excrement later, and that more rounds penetrating more vital organs more likely to ensure deserved death of nogoodnik. :grin:  :grin:  :grin:

Grasshopper,

He who uses deadly force without the iminent threat, (the other person pointing the weapon at them), would probably face charges for murder, om addition to civil liability.

It is reasonable that an employer may make a rule that it's employees not carry or use instruments of deadly force in the course of their employment if they also do not wish to share in that liability.  There is nothing forcing the employee to continue working if they disagree with the conditions of the employment and choose to disregard them.  

If the employee feels the conditions of employment are too dangerous they can always just quit!

[Squirrelsaurus Rex]

Yeah, what he said!!!  :mrgreen:

[Dali Llama]

...fired all 15 rounds at close range.

15?  Who was his attacker, King Kong?  

Dali Llama say honorable pizza delivery employee apparently righteously aware that dead men don't come back for more bovine excrement later, and that more rounds penetrating more vital organs more likely to ensure deserved death of nogoodnik. :grin:  :grin:  :grin:

Grasshopper,

He who uses deadly force without the iminent threat, (the other person pointing the weapon at them), would probably face charges for murder, om addition to civil liability.

It is reasonable that an employer may make a rule that it's employees not carry or use instruments of deadly force in the course of their employment if they also do not wish to share in that liability.  There is nothing forcing the employee to continue working if they disagree with the conditions of the employment and choose to disregard them.  

If the employee feels the conditions of employment are too dangerous they can always just quit!

To whom do Honorable Thomas Krupinski speak when he address "Grasshopper," ask Dali Llama? :?

In any event, Dali say he curious if Thomas Krupinski present at aforesaid incident? :?

Dali say he also curious if Thomas Krupinski be an attorney ("counsellor" in Perry Mason parlance :lol: ) on behalf of employer?  Dali say that Thomas Krupinski's opposition :evil:  to employee exercising legal right to carry concealed weapon certainly make it appear so. :evil:

Dali say he further curious if Thomas Krupinski plan to supplement income of employee who cavalierly "quit" job due to distaste for some elements of job and wish to legally protect self from same? :?

[Thomas Krupinski]

The Grasshopper address is towards the Grand Exhaulted Puba who speaks in the third person to demand respect, yet wishes to remain anynomous in their profile.  There is nothing there, it's empty and it should be treated as such.

Now lets get down to it.  Neither you or anyone else has an inherent right to be a pizza delivery driver unless you own the business.  It is a personal choice you make.  It is also a personal choice for the company, it's management and stockholders who have a vested interest in their employees performance to choose to offer terms of employment if you want to accept them.  If you choose not to, that is your decision and you must be prepared to accept the consequences and not whine about how unfair it is.  Nobody owes you a job, you can take or leave the conditions of employment, it's personal choice.

Pizza delivery is not an occupation that requires life and death decision making skills involving deadly force and those employees are not recruited for those skills.  It can be dangerous like other similar occupations as convience store clerks and taxi cab drivers.  If an employer want to recruit at the lowest level to maximize profitability and reduce liability, that is their right.  The employee also has the right to decline the conditions of employment if they feel those are contradictory to their desires.

The nice point about arguementation is that when someone present a set of facts to be discussed, those are the facts that can be taken to be true for the point of arguement.   It was you who made the statement that the shooter was approached by a man with the gun.  If you had said that the gun was pointed at the shooter or shots had been fired at him, that would be a different story, but that's not how you told it.  

Asking if I am an attorney not relavent and could be considered an insult to my character that I would return.
 
A person has a right to use deadly force for protection, but there are limitations on how much force and in what situations it can be used.  In that case I am sure that will be sorted out in the criminal and civil investigations.  However a person does not have a right to continue employment if they do not follow the rules set forward by the employer they choose to work for.

You question if I would be willing to supplement the income of an employee who cavalierly "quit" job due to distaste for some elements of job and wish to legally protect self from same?  No, I would not, and neither would I be willing to take on the liability for the actions of somone who I hire and refused to follow my instructions in the performance of their duties.

[dukkillr]

i discovered the other day that dali lama really won't address your point when you point out that he doesn't have the right to take is second ammendment anywhere and everywhere he wants... i agree with you completely, if i start a business i get to set the rules i want (within the ADA and federal anti-discriminatory laws) and i can fire someone whenever i want... what if the pizza guy had been wearing an anti-abortion shirt when delivering, instead of his uniform?  well he has a first ammendment right to wear the shirt, but that right does NOT supercede the right of the business owner to set a uniform policy.  and you're also completely correct about liability for killing an assailant who isn't threatening with a gun, and if he was indeed threatening then the pizza delivery guy will not go to jail or be liable in civil court...

[Squirrelsaurus Rex]

...if he was indeed threatening then the pizza delivery guy will not go to jail or be liable in civil court.

That remains to be seen.  He could get slammed regardless.  Even if he was justified in shooting, it could depend on if the prosecutor convinces the jury the pizza guy wasn't justified or acted out of anger or who knows what else, or if the judge is anti-2nd Amendment, or a number of other factors.  There have been lots of cases where a person who was justified in using force to defend themselves went to jail for it anyway.  Unfortunately, our justice system isn't always just.

I agree with the right to use deadly force for self defense when necessary.  But you have to admit, emptying the whole 15-round magazine into the guy (apparently without the other guy firing a single shot), then taking his gun as he lay there dying and leaving the scene is going to make the prosecutor's job pretty damn easy.

[Bikenut]

and if he was indeed threatening then the pizza delivery guy will not go to jail or be liable in civil court...

Just to clear things up a little...........

There is a vast difference between criminal court and civil court. Criminal court requires a person be proven guilty of a crime, a breach of law, beyond a reasonable doubt and is considered innocent until proven guilty. Civil court is NOT like that. Civil court doesn't have to be concerned with law but can only be concerned with whether or not one person suffered a loss of some kind (usually expressed in $$ amount) by the actions or inactions of another person regardless of whether or not a breach of law occurred, or who did the breaching of that law. It is not only possible but almost certain that even if a person shoots an assailant justifiably and faces no criminal charges the assailants family WILL bring forth civil suit against the shooter. And it is quite possible for the shooter, who was proven by investigation to be justified in their actions, to still be sued into poverty.

It isn't correct to have the family of the person who tried to kill/maim the shooter sue the shooter/surviver. It doesn't seem fair but it happens a lot. What also happens a lot is if the shooter has money (the same money the assailant was probably trying to forcably take away) but the family of the assailant doesn't the shooter ends up paying mucho bucks..... just because the court or jury thinks the shooter can well afford it.

Because civil court doesn't have to worry about minor things like proving guilt of a crime but only has to concern itself with proving accountablilty I am much more concerned about civil court than I am of criminal court in the event I am involved in a shooting. An example of what I'm trying to say: "Did ya shoot the guy? Yes. Ok, had you not shot him he would be alive but since ya did shoot him and he isn't alive the family is entitled to recompense for their loss. But the guy was trying to kill me! So what, you shot him.. the family now has a loss... pay them." Civil court isn't about justice, it is all about money.

[Dali Llama]

Neither you or anyone else has an inherent right to be a pizza delivery driver unless you own the business.  It is a personal choice you make.  It is also a personal choice for the company, it's management and stockholders who have a vested interest in their employees performance to choose to offer terms of employment if you want to accept them.  If you choose not to, that is your decision and you must be prepared to accept the consequences and not whine about how unfair it is.  

Pizza delivery is not an occupation that requires life and death decision making skills involving deadly force and those employees are not recruited for those skills.  It can be dangerous like other similar occupations as convience store clerks and taxi cab drivers.  If an employer want to recruit at the lowest level to maximize profitability and reduce liability, that is their right.  The employee also has the right to decline the conditions of employment if they feel those are contradictory to their desires.

Dali Llama say that for someone who refuse to confirm whether or not he be attorney for employer, Thomas Krupinski certainly speak (and doublespeak! :lol: ) like one. :-)   Dali say he wager that given anti-employee stance Thomas Krupinski take, one thing be for certain: Thomas Krupinski do not represent organized labor in legal matters. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Dali Llama]

i discovered the other day that dali lama really won't address your point when you point out that he doesn't have the right to take is second ammendment anywhere and everywhere he wants.

Dali Llama say he not quite certain what dukkillr mean by "is second ammendment" [sic] phrase? :?   Dali opine, however, that dukkillr be on wrong forum if he wish to oppose Second Amendment rights of United States citizens.    Dali suggest that such anti-gun rhetoric :evil:  would likely be more welcome on web forums that espouse gun control. :evil:

[Dali Llama]

Pizza delivery is not an occupation that requires life and death decision making skills involving deadly force and those employees are not recruited for those skills.  If an employer want to recruit at the lowest level to maximize profitability and reduce liability, that is their right.  

Dali Llama say he curious what Thomas Krupinski mean by such commentary, as it certainly sound insulting to intelligence of pizza delivery drivers and demeaning of their occupation.  :?  :?  :?

[Thomas Krupinski]

When Grasshopper takes time to use eyes to view profile he will find the truth and not engage in foolish wager.  It would be pointless to wager with someone who lacks credibility and hides in the shadows to snipe and tease.

If Grasshopper thinks he was endowed by his creator with the inallienable right to empoyment on his terms wherever he wishes, he belongs on the picket line with the sign where he will feel at home.  But if Grasshopper would ever employ anyone to perform work for him, would he also be willing to allow that person to do things that Grasshopper objected to, and still pay for that disobedience.    Perhaps when Grasshopper grows up he will understand.[/quote]

[Thomas Krupinski]

Pizza delivery is not an occupation that requires life and death decision making skills involving deadly force and those employees are not recruited for those skills.  If an employer want to recruit at the lowest level to maximize profitability and reduce liability, that is their right.  

Dali Llama say he curious what Thomas Krupinski mean by such commentary, as it certainly sound insulting to intelligence of pizza delivery drivers and demeaning of their occupation.  :?  :?  :?

If Grasshopper is having trouble figuring that out he has a long way to travel in his journey.

[NYH1]

  It was you who made the statement that the shooter was approached by a man with the gun.  If you had said that the gun was pointed at the shooter or shots had been fired at him, that would be a different story

If somebody is "approaching me with a gun in their hand" pointing it at me or not and their not in a "police uniform" or showing a badge and identifying them self as a police officer, I'm gonna draw down on them. If they don't drop their weapon or if they do point it at me, I'll shoot. You "don't" let someone get a good aim on you, if you do your dead. I also think its federal law that you have to be 21 years old to have a pistol, I'm not 100% sure about this though.
As far as how many rounds he fire I think thats irrelevant. Ask some of our combat friends out there what its like to be involved in any kind of fire fight and see what they say. My father was in Vietnam and he's told me a few times you just react to the situation, you don't think about it until its over. Just my $.02

[Thomas Krupinski]

  It was you who made the statement that the shooter was approached by a man with the gun.  If you had said that the gun was pointed at the shooter or shots had been fired at him, that would be a different story

If somebody is "approaching me with a gun in their hand" pointing it at me or not and their not in a "police uniform" or showing a badge and identifying them self as a police officer, I'm gonna draw down on them. If they don't drop their weapon or if they do point it at me, I'll shoot. You "don't" let someone get a good aim on you, if you do your dead. I also think its federal law that you have to be 21 years old to have a pistol, I'm not 100% sure about this though.
As far as how many rounds he fire I think thats irrelevant. Ask some of our combat friends out there what its like to be involved in any kind of fire fight and see what they say. My father was in Vietnam and he's told me a few times you just react to the situation, you don't think about it until its over. Just my $.02

It usually varries with the locality on legalities, but I believe it is generally accepted that you can use deadly force only in proportion to the level of threat.  If you disable your attacker and the threat is eliminated, you are not justified in continuing your use of deadly force.

In that story that was presented there is insufficient information to make a determination if use of deadly force was warranted.  From the wording there a number of possibilities could be offered, including some really unlikely, but possible.  It did not say what type of gun, how the person was holding the gun (by the barrel, around the frame, or around the grip with his finger on the trigger, or a long gun slung over his shoulder), was he offering to trade the gun for pizza's or who knows, stranger things have happened.  From the information presented it was unclear.

Use of deadly force is serious and should not be taken lightly.  With the right to use you must also accept the responsibility to become proficient in the use of your weapon and the rules of engagement.  The big problem is that you often must make a split second decision and that's where your training, experience and competence will come in.

We have a similar case reported in the news here in Arizona where a hiker shot and killed a man, who had three unleashed dogs.  The hiker stated that he was threatened by the dogs and killed the man.  The deputies who initially investigated did not find basis to charge the hiker.  There are friends of the deceased who are petitioning the County Attorney to investigate on the basis that the hiker, if threatened, should have shot the dogs instead.  But again in the way the media presents the story there is insufficient information to know what really happened, and the dogs ain't talking.

Now as far as your Dad's stories, been there then and done that, but that is an entirely different type of situation.  Since then I have been in a number of situations where I had the choice and capability to use deadly force and declined because of insufficient information and lack of percieved threat to the degree that would warrant such use.  I am satisified with my decisions and when you examine them later you have to live with the choices you made.

[Squirrelsaurus Rex]

Ask some of our combat friends out there what its like...

I've been to war myself, but thanks for the advice anyway.

[bgjohn]

You guys need to know where Tom's coming from. I know him. He's rich as Creosus. He's not a lawyer and he doesn't own Pizza-Hut. He does own Domino's. 'Nuff said?
 :-) JM

[Thomas Krupinski]

Now John you know that I don't have any financial interests in any pizza places or anything like that.  The only thing I have to do with them is heat up frozen ones or occasionally pay for one when it's delivered.

[bgjohn]

Now John you know that I don't have any financial interests in any pizza places or anything like that.  The only thing I have to do with them is heat up frozen ones or occasionally pay for one when it's delivered.

I know that Tom but this makes a better story. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
JM

[dukkillr]

why is reasonable discussion about constitutional rights (a subject i've studied at some depth) mean that i am espousing, "anti-gun rhetoric"?  I feel that it's important to realize the reality of situation rather than just spout incoherent babble about how gun rights should supercede all other rights, including the right to set your own company policies and the right to maintain the rules on your own personal property.  i am NOT anti-gun, i promise, i just think you have to realize your opinions don't supercede other people's rights.

[Dali Llama]

why is reasonable discussion about constitutional rights (a subject i've studied at some depth) mean that i am espousing, "anti-gun rhetoric"?  

Dali Llama say he still not certain what dukkillr mean by "is second ammendment" [sic] phrase in earlier post?  Dali opine, however, that dukkillr be on wrong forum if he wish to oppose Second Amendment rights of United States citizens.

[bgjohn]

why is reasonable discussion about constitutional rights (a subject i've studied at some depth) mean that i am espousing, "anti-gun rhetoric"?  I feel that it's important to realize the reality of situation rather than just spout incoherent babble about how gun rights should supercede all other rights, including the right to set your own company policies and the right to maintain the rules on your own personal property.  i am NOT anti-gun, i promise, i just think you have to realize your opinions don't supercede other people's rights.

You have the right to set the rules of employment. I have the right to ignore those rules to protect my safety. You then have the right to fire me for doing so (if you catch me). I also have the right to buy my pizza elsewhere. What's the problem? You do what you have to do and I'll do what I need to do.    
JM

[Dali Llama]

Pizza delivery is not an occupation that requires life and death decision making skills involving deadly force and those employees are not recruited for those skills.  If an employer want to recruit at the lowest level to maximize profitability and reduce liability, that is their right.  

Dali Llama say he curious what Thomas Krupinski mean by such commentary, as it certainly sound insulting to intelligence of pizza delivery drivers and demeaning of their occupation.  :?  :?  :?

If Grasshopper is having trouble figuring that out he has a long way to travel in his journey.

Dali Llama say he prefer Thomas Krupinski simply explain his denigrating remarks about pizza delivery drivers, and save Dali trouble of long, arduous journey.  

[Thomas Krupinski]

Pizza delivery is not an occupation that requires life and death decision making skills involving deadly force and those employees are not recruited for those skills.  If an employer want to recruit at the lowest level to maximize profitability and reduce liability, that is their right.  

Dali Llama say he curious what Thomas Krupinski mean by such commentary, as it certainly sound insulting to intelligence of pizza delivery drivers and demeaning of their occupation.  :?  :?  :?

If Grasshopper is having trouble figuring that out he has a long way to travel in his journey.

Dali Llama say he prefer Thomas Krupinski simply explain his denigrating remarks about pizza delivery drivers, and save Dali trouble of long, arduous journey. :P  :P

Naw, you need something to do when your pizza delivery orders are slow.

[Bikenut]

Ok.... sticking to the pizza delivery man topic............

Suppose an employer hires a person to perform a job duty that involves a certain degree of danger. Delivering pizza is such a job depending on what neighborhood, what time of day or night, what day of the week, and what time of the year the delivery is made. The employer knows there is a degree of danger to the employee because of the above conditions but because the employer doesn't want to have any liability if the employee shoots an assailant the employer will not allow the employee to carry a legal gun in a legal manner.

Ok... now suppose the employee, while performing his/her job duty, is robbed at gunpoint and during that robbery is shot. Since the employer denied the employee the means (legal carry of a gun) to protect themselves does the employer now have liability where the employee's injury or death is concerned?

I honestly don't know the answer to that. However, I suspect the answer is a resounding NO! Anyone know the actual answer to that question?

[Thomas Krupinski]

I believe I read in the newspaper about a case here in Phoenix where a female pizza delivery worker was abducted and worse while making a deliver.  As I remember there was not the issue of a firearm carried by the employee, but from what I remember (been a while ago) that both the employers insurance company and workers compensation program picked up liability.  

As I remember there was some negligence alleged in that the employer did not take care to verify the address to be valid or something like that.
Maybe Big John can recall reading more details in the papers, but from what I remember she was dispatched to a vacant house in a west Phoenix neighborhood.

I am with you in that I do not know the answer, but I would suspect there would be a libability issue if a employer knowingly place an employee in an dangerous situation without adequate safeguards.

Let me also throw out another twist to that situation.  What if the pizza delivery person was not an employee, but rather a self employed independent contractor, or alleged to be such by the employer.  I suspect it would be very hard for them to establish that, but what if and if so would the liability be the same?

[bgjohn]

I remember that one Tom. They raped her, killed her and burned the body in her vehicle.

They caught them. They  tracked them down by the unique pizza they head ordered previously.
JM

[Dali Llama]

Pizza delivery is not an occupation that requires life and death decision making skills involving deadly force and those employees are not recruited for those skills.  If an employer want to recruit at the lowest level to maximize profitability and reduce liability, that is their right.  

Dali Llama say he curious what Thomas Krupinski mean by such commentary, as it certainly sound insulting to intelligence of pizza delivery drivers and demeaning of their occupation.  :?  :?  :?

If Grasshopper is having trouble figuring that out he has a long way to travel in his journey.

Dali Llama say he prefer Thomas Krupinski simply explain his denigrating remarks about pizza delivery drivers, and save Dali trouble of long, arduous journey.  

Dali Llama say it appear to him that Thomas Krupinski yet again intent on disparaging honorable occupation of pizza delivery driver.  Dali say that unfortunately not everyone blessed with education and lucrative occupation apparently enjoyed by Thomas Krupinski. :roll: