Pizza Hut would do this to any driver that defended themselves from a robbery, because drivers are not allowed to be armed according to Pizza Hut policy, and that policy goes all the way back to 1990, when Pizza Hut first started delivering.
Most people carry anyway, of course, because better to be alive to be fired than dead, right?
I used to love to go to Pizza Hut as a kid. I don't think it was actually fancy, but it felt fancy to a kid. They had cool lights over the tables I remember. I don't think where I was they had alcohol. It was more of a place for people like I was, the family with the school age kids to go out but couldn't afford expensive restaurants. We never had pizza delivered. First pizza I remembered delivered I was 15, I was at the house by myself for the weekend, couldn't drive and I had some money so I ordered a pizza.
I don't know what happened to that though. I guess everyone got tired of their kids or it was taboo to expect them to be able to sit at a restaurant for an hour and not be disruptive or something. Or I guess everything had to be a trendy pub. No idea.
Markets change, especially as the entire world got less community/social oriented.
Look at what Doordash and similar did to restaurants and fast food in general. Now most of them are adapting towards a no human contact, almost half delivery customer base and that's likely to continue until the people that eat in are so few that its not worth the floor space to cater to them.
It just happened to pizza specifically earlier because delivery for them became normalized decades earlier.
That hot nacho cheese could be considered a weapon I burned my fingers a few times on it but I mean what are they suppose to do throw twinkies and tacoqiutos at them?! lol
I worked at a drug store chain in my early Uni days in Canada. We had the same policy there. If someone came in with a gun, I was told to give him the money in the cash register (never more than 200$, the rest would be put in a safe I didn't have a key for), and then just wait until he left, at which point I would call the cops and the store manager, who would come in to hand them the video and report the exact amount stolen.
It seems to be standard policy, because it was considered far less risky than being a vigilante. Less chance of being killed in the moment, and fewer chances of retaliation from any associates the criminal might have.
But in this case I take note of this part of her statement:
I tried to run away and he grabbed my neck
Gloves are off at that point as if he was JUST after money, he'd allow the clerk to run off. We live at a time that criminality has been passively accepted too much, it has escalated to where now they feel they can hurt people with impunity so all clerks should stay strapped for their own protection.
Oh, I hadn't read the article, I was just responding to the comment above. If the criminal escalated the situation like that, then yeah, a more intense response was warranted.
There was a case in Baltimore where a thief was trying to steal a spotlight from a school roof. The school had painted over the skylights, so the thief fell through it and on to his head. He became an instant mute quadriplegic. His lawyers sued and dude won 260,000 dollars plus monthly payments for his medical treatment.
That's how basically all corporates operate, entirely to protect themselves.
If they didn't fire or punish their employee for it in some way, then it becomes "approval" of their actions and suddenly the criminal can sue the company for damages to himself to find some loophole to get paid bank.
Its part of the reason why "letter of the law" is often treated so derisively, because it allows for retarded chains of events like that to become the norm. Because technically X Y and Z until criminals win for doing crime, when anyone with a brain would just tell them to fuck off even if technically.
This seems to have happened in Oklahoma.
And since they didn't show a picture of the perp, I'm assuming he was black.
ding ding ding, we have a winner
Pretty standard in the corporate world.
Pizza Hut would do this to any driver that defended themselves from a robbery, because drivers are not allowed to be armed according to Pizza Hut policy, and that policy goes all the way back to 1990, when Pizza Hut first started delivering.
Most people carry anyway, of course, because better to be alive to be fired than dead, right?
Blows my mind that Pizza Hut only started delivering in 1990.
I've seen the stock photos of the dine-in experience from the 80s. We used to be a proper country.
I used to love to go to Pizza Hut as a kid. I don't think it was actually fancy, but it felt fancy to a kid. They had cool lights over the tables I remember. I don't think where I was they had alcohol. It was more of a place for people like I was, the family with the school age kids to go out but couldn't afford expensive restaurants. We never had pizza delivered. First pizza I remembered delivered I was 15, I was at the house by myself for the weekend, couldn't drive and I had some money so I ordered a pizza.
I don't know what happened to that though. I guess everyone got tired of their kids or it was taboo to expect them to be able to sit at a restaurant for an hour and not be disruptive or something. Or I guess everything had to be a trendy pub. No idea.
Markets change, especially as the entire world got less community/social oriented.
Look at what Doordash and similar did to restaurants and fast food in general. Now most of them are adapting towards a no human contact, almost half delivery customer base and that's likely to continue until the people that eat in are so few that its not worth the floor space to cater to them.
It just happened to pizza specifically earlier because delivery for them became normalized decades earlier.
Same with Uber and DoorDash, despite drivers there ostensibly being independent contractors.
Yea, if I'm using my car, I'm gonna be armed, and fuck Uber and DoorDash if they don't like it.
It should be illegal for companies to infringe on your 2nd amendment rights. Change my mind.
The guy who developed the first practical Kevlar body armor was a pizza delivery driver in the late 1960s. It's been a wild job for a long time.
That hot nacho cheese could be considered a weapon I burned my fingers a few times on it but I mean what are they suppose to do throw twinkies and tacoqiutos at them?! lol
To be fair, following the policy of "believe
allno women", that's just what the store clerk said, not directly from 7/11.But yeah, it does fit with corporate retail's tendency towards retarded rules forbidding any form of independent thought.
Just remember the stores with higher prices runned by jeets also have these kind of policies anyway
I worked at a drug store chain in my early Uni days in Canada. We had the same policy there. If someone came in with a gun, I was told to give him the money in the cash register (never more than 200$, the rest would be put in a safe I didn't have a key for), and then just wait until he left, at which point I would call the cops and the store manager, who would come in to hand them the video and report the exact amount stolen.
It seems to be standard policy, because it was considered far less risky than being a vigilante. Less chance of being killed in the moment, and fewer chances of retaliation from any associates the criminal might have.
But in this case I take note of this part of her statement:
Gloves are off at that point as if he was JUST after money, he'd allow the clerk to run off. We live at a time that criminality has been passively accepted too much, it has escalated to where now they feel they can hurt people with impunity so all clerks should stay strapped for their own protection.
Oh, I hadn't read the article, I was just responding to the comment above. If the criminal escalated the situation like that, then yeah, a more intense response was warranted.
Your health and safety is against our policy you should of let the thief shoot you
Saar on Nig?
Not allowing niggers to kill you in peace is racism.
There was a case in Baltimore where a thief was trying to steal a spotlight from a school roof. The school had painted over the skylights, so the thief fell through it and on to his head. He became an instant mute quadriplegic. His lawyers sued and dude won 260,000 dollars plus monthly payments for his medical treatment.
That's how basically all corporates operate, entirely to protect themselves.
If they didn't fire or punish their employee for it in some way, then it becomes "approval" of their actions and suddenly the criminal can sue the company for damages to himself to find some loophole to get paid bank.
Its part of the reason why "letter of the law" is often treated so derisively, because it allows for retarded chains of events like that to become the norm. Because technically X Y and Z until criminals win for doing crime, when anyone with a brain would just tell them to fuck off even if technically.
''Company policy'' here would have resulted in her death.
I hope she sues them into bankrupcy.
It'd be terrible if something happened to 7-11 corporate execs. Just terrible.