Quote:
Originally posted by rat
Alot of the people in this thread seemed to have missed the entire point of the article and its subsequent link into this thread. The point being made was not whether the robber was/should-have-been shot, but about the company policy that cost the man his job for performing a legal act while in employment for Pizza Hut, Inc. Ethics of murder/self-defense aside, that is the issue of this thread. It's been taken rather off-topic by the last half-dozen or so posts. Let's stick to the issue--analysis of the policy that cost the man his job.
|
I started the thread, so I can assure you that both points were meant to be discussed.