A 7-11 clerk was being attacked by a customer because she refused to accept a counterfeit $100 bill. Read what happened next:
Stephanie Dilyard was working alone when a customer attempted to pay for burritos, beef sticks, and ice cream with a counterfeit $100 bill. When she refused the transaction, the situation quickly escalated.
“He threatened me and said he was going to slice my head off,” Dilyard recounted. As she tried to call police, the suspect began throwing items and then came behind the counter. “I tried to run off, but he grabbed his hands around my neck and pushed me out of the counter space. That’s when I pulled out my gun and I shot him.”
Good on her. However, her employer didn’t agree: they fired her for defending herself. I used to get roasted for this on the now defunct Packing.org, but I think that, if a property owner prohibits carry, they should be subject to liability for not taking steps to defend you from criminals. Apparently, property rights are sacrosanct to the libertarian crowd. This is what an attorney had to say about the shooting:
Ed Blau, a criminal defense attorney, explained the company’s stance, stating, “7-Eleven as a corporation, they do not want all of their employees packing heat while working all over the country. That presents a tremendous liability risk for them.” Blau suggested that Dilyard might face challenges in pursuing a wrongful termination lawsuit, as the company’s policy was clear.
The libertarian crowd has long held that, if a property owner wants to prohibit weapons or self defense on their property and you get attacked by a criminal while on the property, well, that’s just too damned bad. That’s the risk you take while on someone else’s property. I wholeheartedly disagree. To me, this is no different than a property owner chaining the emergency exit shut, then an arsonist sets the building on fire. While the owner didn’t start the fire, his actions contributed to the loss of life that followed.
So back to the criminals on property discussion: A property owner or employer prohibits weapons. A criminal comes in and stabs you, but you were prohibited the most effective means of self defense. It should be left to a jury as to how much of the liability is on the property owner. Perhaps the jury rules 10%, or even 70%. Each case is different, that’s why we have juries in the first place.
Otherwise, you create the situation we have now- you are attacked by a criminal on someone else’s property. The property owner can’t be held liable for the actions of criminals, so they are free from liability. However, if that property owner doesn’t prohibit weapons or self defense, then the criminal who gets shot in self defense can now sue the property owner for damages that were the direct result of their criminal behavior.
What a perverse incentive that favors criminals.
To sum it up- your employer is in business to make money. They don’t care if you live or die, unless your death somehow hurts the bottom line. The reason for this is that our current legal system punishes property owners and shields criminals. That needs to change.
Now I am going to get off of here and go fly my DCS plane. I’m learning inflight refueling today.





