<b><quote>"Other criminals better think twice, because I'm going back out there," he said, "and I know I'm not alone in the way I think about this." </quote></b>

Does this dumbass think he is the king of the ghetto now? Does he think he cant be touched? One day someone will shoot him first with that attitude.

I started the thread, so I can assure you that both points were meant to be discussed.

I think the driver did the right thing and that he shouldn't have been fired. Pizza Hut should have given him a raise for doing a good job. After working there for 20 years and getting fired for just trying to protect yourself? That is crazy.

The driver was perfectly within his legal rights to carry the gun but Pizza Hut was also within their rights to not allow employs to carry weapons at work. He did what he felt was in his best interest and so did they. Breaking their rule may have saved his life but he did break it and most likely knew he was breaking it. If they didn't fire him they would be opening themselves up to legal troubles over selective enforcement from other people who have been fired for breaking the rules.

It's funny how you say that because in hunter's safety one of the biggest rules about guns is to treat every gun as it is loaded.

I won't be trusting a mugger to go just far enough to get the desired stuff. Self defense will be on the top of my mind.

Edit: The story makes a good example of why armed citizens work as a deterent, results such as that.

Ok first of all my most quoted sentence was not meant that he should have expected a gun not to be loaded. It was meant as sarcasm and in my belief will be used in court by the family to say the kid was just trying to scare.

Yes, every gun should be treated as loaded. But now when the family sues "intent" will be an issue.

Nowhere did I say he was wrong to defend himself. The problem I have is 10 freaking rounds in the man. There is truly no excuse for that whatsoever. You can argue all you want, I defy any man on here to take 5-6 shots in 8 seconds and be standing and alert enough to shoot a gun, on drugs or not. Imagine twice that going through you.

And as far as shooting till the guy is dead to avoid a "lawsuit" or criminal charges. Is ridiculous. We all might as well walk around with guns strapped to our waists and bring back the old Wild West lawlessness menatality.

And I still believe at least in Indy, this will lead to drivers getting capped and it will not be this great "deterrent" everyone says it will be. Hope I am wrong.

So you're a ballistics expert?

A bullet does not contain enough kinetic energy to send a guy flying; especially a 9mm round. Hollywood has done a wonderful job of presenting that misconception. The guy fired his entire clip, and 2/3 of those rounds hit their target. He fired until he was certain his target was DOWN, which is what you do in a high-stress situation.

You keep on assuming this guy is going to be able to evaluate the situation; that's bullshit. You're not going to be able to tell if your target is "alert enough to shoot a gun," just as you can't tell if the guy's gun is loaded in the first place. You assume a worse-case scenario and fire until your target is dead.

How many rounds would you prefer this man have fired? Is there a limit we should set up? How would you decide such a thing?

Yes, but not the intent of their little angel. That would not get them the money they feel they deserve and will actually complete the robbery of the institution their progeny initiated.
OK, So what was the excuse to shove a gun in someone's face?
Why is that ridiculous? You yourself have brought up lawsuits in your post above! So obviously it is not ridiculous and since the family is now trying to lie what do you think a known criminal would do? Someone who is willing to pull a gun on someone is not likely to have scruples about lying to get even more money!

When people like you who feel for violent criminals may be on a jury I think it is the only choice an honest man has.
Do you have any specifics of this mentality that do not involve fictional movies? More people are murdered now then back then. Hands down. No questions asked.
I agree with you on this part.

Speaking on the matter of Lawsuits.. I have read a few references in this thread about the criminal bringing tort charges against the individual or company. My problem is, why does no one ever speak of the victim of a violent crime bringing charges against the perpetrator? Why cant this driver sue the criminal's family for allowing this man to assault him? Because you can damn well bet the family of the criminal is going to try to sue the driver, as well as PH.

That is the problem with the civil system in this country.. honest law abiding, sensible people are left at the whim and mercy of greedy criminals and the lawyers who perpetrate the steady decline of decency.

I say sue the criminal, thier family and friends.. see how they like it for once. If I ever fall victim, you can damn well bet I am going to do EXACTLY that.

i do not doubt that he has waited a long time to do that. company policy is company policy, i don't sympathise for him losing his job.
what if one of the bullets had killed a child? pizza hut would be sued for letting him carry the gun regardless of their non-actual knowledge of it.

What if his bullet had accidentally ripped a hole in the space-time continuum and allowed an alien race of giant space hamsters to invade and subjugate our planet? Pizza Hut would be really fucked then.

The guy was assaulted in a high-crime area, and was defending himself. Let's not expand this argument to the hypothetical; there's enough to discuss right here in the real world.

People keep saying that the gunman would not kill the driver if he had just gotten the money and/or pizza. Unfortunately, many times the robbers do kill the victims to make sure they leave behind no witnesses.

One of my good friend's brothers was killed in a sporting goods store after he complied with a robber's request to hand over all the money in the register. I'd like someone to tell him that nobody should defend themselves. As for Pizza Hut, the rule might be foolish, but as long as it is a rule, they can fire employees for breaking it.

Or we could acknowledge that time and again, the "deep pockets" approach to justice succeeds, and he with the most money gets sued. In the possibility outlined above about an innocent bystander being sued, Pizza Hut WOULD be responsible, as the man did it while executing the conditions of his employment at the time of the assault/homicide. Pizza Hut would also lose a few million in settlement dollars, guaranteed. it's the way the system works.