Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Let's Go Kroger-Sueing!

Jay G blogged it first: the family of the Indianapolis thug who was shot by a manager while robbing a local Kroger is now suing Kroger.

Why? Because the store chain didn't enforce their no-guns policy, thereby exposing the would-be bandit to "peril." ...Yep, peril. While threatening employees and trying to rob the store.

If you were wondering why good ol' Barney Kroger won't let his employees arm themselves, wonder no more. While local legal luminaries don't think this notion will get very far in an Indiana court, all it takes is one really good sob story* and a judge who figures a grocery chain has got deep pockets to put a serious hurt on the company -- and that's dice they're not willing to roll. After all, the forces of idiocy keep assuring them that all that have to do is give the bad guys what they want and everything will be okay; that theory plays pretty well when you're not the clerk being chivvied into the backroom with what feels like a gun jammed into your back.
__________________________________________
* I blame Jean Valjean for this kind of sappiness. It's a story, people; in the 'States, he'd've been holding up a sign at a freeway interchange asking for bread money, not stealing the stuff.

12 comments:

Divemedic said...

This is why when people try to tell me that a business has a "no guns" policy because of their "property rights" I call BS.

The reason so many businesses have a "no guns" policy is because if the law: If a legal CCW holder shoots a criminal, the store gets sued. If a criminal shoots an employee on property with a no guns policy, the business owners are immune.

perlhaqr said...

That seems to imply that a "no guns" policy--which physically cannot be enforced--is more of a liability than an asset.

If the store hadn't had a no guns policy, this lawsuit... well, would have to have another half-assed justification instead.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Oh, I'm sure that Krogers will just write a nice big check to keep it out of the Courts. After all, all it takes is one Anti-Gun Judge to Rule that Krogers should have performed Body Cavity searches on every Employee before they clocked into work as PROOF that Krogers was "Criminally Negligent."

Actually, one of my friends is a Contract Security Guard who gets work through Pinkertons at a LOT of Big Name Corporations. Dirty Little Secret Time. Turns out the Bean Counters are telling the Big Corps that it's cheaper to pay him $300 a Day to roam the floor every time one of their Employees gets Disgruntled and/or Fired, rather than shell out a Million Bucks to each Survivor and/or Estate because one of their workers decided to go "Postal" in their "Gun Free Work Place." They like to Hire Cops and/or ex-Military who were MP's. But having a State License as a Private Security Guard also helps.

Granted, one does bounce around a lot, but in Today's Economy, $300 a day is nice.

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

Seems like the manager has an equally good case against the perp's estate (yeah, there's a laugh) for violating the store's no-gun policy and forcing him to unconceal and kill him.

My head hurts. (I'm in DC and unarmed, I'm sure that's why.)

Anonymous said...

The homie wasn't looking to hurt anybody he didn't even have any bullets in his piece. All he looking for was a little walking around money and that store wouldn't even miss it.

Panamared said...

Wonder if I've got everything I need to make a ham sandwich.

Dave H said...

I suspect insurance companies are a driving force behind corporate no-gun policies. They can raise the premiums on anyone who doesn't comply, and they're not obligated to recognize anybody's rights.

rickn8or said...

Fuzzy, didn't the manager get fired over this? If so, it would seem he's got the stronger case than the misguided yoot.

Surely Indiana has a "no suing for getting killed while committing a felony" law.

kishnevi said...

And of course (to add to the craziness) if the would be robber had an accomplice, that accomplice would have been facing felony murder charges

Sendarius said...

rickn8or:

They aren't suing the SHOOTER, are they?

The way I read the "immunity for a good defensive shooting" law is that it protects the SHOOTER, and ONLY the shooter.

Kristopher said...

Fine.

Countersue the perp for endangering the manager's life.

If the perp gets a settlement from Krogers, have it seized to pay for the manager's claim against the perp.

Kristopher said...

I take it that state does not have a proper victim's protection statute?