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.
21 Comments
Dan · November 21, 2025 at 9:30 am
You don’t sue the company for firing you. You sue them for failing to provide a safe work environment. If policy says you can’t defend yourself and you do they can fire you. It sucks, it’s evil, but it’s legal. But a safe work environment reason expectation for ALL employees everywhere. Failure to provide that IS reasonable grounds to sue. If you are attacked on the job then by default n your work place is not safe. The burden is on the employer to prove they provided a safe work place. THIS is the tactic that needs to be used in cases like this.
Divemedic · November 21, 2025 at 10:28 am
Except the law doesn’t allow for that. All the employer needs to do is have a policy that is reasonable. The courts have held that a “no guns” sign and things like adequate security lighting are enough. The property owner can’t be held liable for criminal acts committed by third parties if they did things to mitigate it.
Dan · November 21, 2025 at 11:44 am
If you are harmed while “on the clock” the employers “policies” are by default inadequate. And you can sue anyone for any reason. The “law” is irrelevant. A good shyster could make a go of such a lawsuit.
Divemedic · November 21, 2025 at 1:05 pm
Good luck with that.
In the United States, most employees cannot sue their employer for negligence if they are injured at work—including injuries from criminal attacks because Workers’ comp typically covers
medical care, lost wages, and disability benefits. Because of this exclusive-remedy doctrine, suing the employer in civil court for negligence is usually not allowed.
Sure, it is possible to sue for negligence if the employer knew about a specific threat and ignored it. For example, if the employer had actual knowledge of a credible threat, like a
known violent customer, a known dangerous coworker, previous explicit threats, or
a pattern of violence at the location and the employer failed to take reasonable protective steps, some states allow a lawsuit for various types of negligence and Workers’ comp may not bar the claim if the danger was foreseeable and preventable.
That’s the key- foreseeable. That can be tough to prove. Simply not allowing employees to carry firearms isn’t enough to hit that standard.
Sure, you CAN sue, but if you lose, in many states the loser pays the legal fees of the winner. Now obviously this can vary from state to state. For example, in Florida Workers’ comp usually bars negligence suits unless the employer committed an intentional tort or engaged in conduct “substantially certain to cause injury.”
Other states have different rules, but it isn’t as nearly as easy as you seem to think it is.
Birdog357 · November 21, 2025 at 10:22 am
This is why I put up with shitty weather and shitty pay at my current job. I get to carry. My boss just requires a thumb safety because he’s paranoid about NDs. Which is hysterical for reasons I won’t go into here….
Henry Quirk · November 21, 2025 at 10:24 am
As a (natural rights) libertarian I never sacrifice my control of my property (my body, my gun, etc.) when I’m on someone else’s. That’s the balance, the sweet spot, between yours and mine. You have absolute control over yours and absolutely no control over mine, and vice versa. 7-11 is just wrong; Dilyard is right. Too bad (for her) ‘law’ is no longer aligned with morality.
Sardaukar · November 21, 2025 at 12:41 pm
Thanks for posting this. She has a gofundme account if anyone wants to donate (I did). Here is the page (please delete DM if it’s not allowed).
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-stephanie-dilyard-after-job-loss
Anonymous · November 21, 2025 at 4:00 pm
Pain, and suffering, are one of those worker’s compensation things that be lucrative for the injured. I’m thinking the woman will be well rewarded for he actions. They aren’t saying much about the condition of the assailant, but if the round removed his ability to procreate, it was a good shot.
lynn · November 21, 2025 at 4:20 pm
I think that the lady has an actionable cause in Oklahoma. A blue state, never.
lynn · November 21, 2025 at 4:23 pm
Back in the nasty 1970s, so many 7-11s were getting robbed here in Houston, Texas that 7-11 had shotgun squads in the back room on a random basis. After a few robbers were cut in half, the robbers avoided 7-11 and went to easier stores.
Skeptic · November 21, 2025 at 4:30 pm
I found the mugshot of Kenneth Thompson. Not black (as I originally figured) but definitely looks American Indian (casino, not curry). Oklahoma has a very high Indian population – and a very big Indian problem.
Old Maine Farmer · November 21, 2025 at 5:45 pm
The ultimate ‘your employer doesn’t care’ was on 9-11, when a flight of two F-16’s were on alert without air-to-air weapons (pilots might hurt someone or do something stupid). They were scrambled to intercept one of the 911 airliners, and had briefed for the CO to suicide bomb the airliner cockpit, and the Junior Officer wingman to suicide crash into the tail if he failed. All because the alert aircraft pilots that are supposed to defend our country are not trusted to use real weapons. You can’t make this stuff up. You can look this up; they were interviewed on YouTube.
Danny · November 21, 2025 at 5:46 pm
Nobody has mentioned it, but the cash transaction is central to this. It’s another incident that builds the case for all-digital currency. Which is fraught with problems.
Not that there won’t be any other assholes assaulting store clerks. And they would probably just walk out without paying – which apparently has been common in many places in recent years.
Plague Monk · November 21, 2025 at 7:32 pm
After I returned to college for my drafting/design degree, I had trouble finding professional employment. I went to work for the Dominate Pizza location in Auburn NY as a driver. We were forbidden to carry firearms, despite frequent robberies.
I did what I did while working a pro contract in Mordor on the Potomac a few years earlier; I started carrying a can of hornet spray, even in winter. The co-manager saw it one day on my front seat and went into a verbal tirade about that, and the pocket knife I always had with me.
I told him that I had carried the knife into a few places with high security, and the guards had no problem with it. As to the hornet spray, I told him that I was deathly afraid of yellow jackets. Well, a punk tried to rob me one night on a dead end street near the Auburn prison. I brought up my can and gave him a face full of hornet spray; he ran and was eventually taken to the hospital, where the police found driver licenses from other victims. I wasn’t fired, but my hours were cut back to 10 hours/week. I quit soon after to get a better paying janitorial job at the Cayuga County nursing home until I got a designer job.
I will never patronize a 7-11 because of this policy, and I’ve only used a Dominate Pizza once, in a western Kansas town where the driver carried a revolver that Dirty Harry might have crapped his pants over.
Jester · November 21, 2025 at 8:05 pm
Well DM, as a libertarian I actually do agree with you, in which if you strip the means of defense you are at least morally responsible for taking away the means of such. However, consider this. As the property owner are you responsible to protect anyone on your property (Assuming they were invited or there to conduct legit business?) Are you liable if someone chooses to not be armed and they were injured during the actions of a felony? This to me is where it gets murky. While I get that the idea of you are under no obligation as a coorperation to provide protection I think that is part of the mindset that protects private property. Now Morally speaking if I knew my home was being cased actively, there were break ins in my area I’d probally be asking my friends over to have firearm inspection partys. And if they happened to be unarmed, well they would be armed but I’m somewhat of an odd duck about my views I’m told..
Divemedic · November 21, 2025 at 8:31 pm
Name another area where property owners are relieved of liability if an invited guest is injured:
Fire, falling on a wet floor, or other accident. How is criminal activity any different? I’m not saying that a property owner shouldn’t have the right to prohibit weapons, but I am saying if you are going to prohibit the means of self defense, then you become liable for the negative events of that decision.
Jester · November 21, 2025 at 9:13 pm
I’m not saying that I disagree with you DM, just bringing up other things. While there can be other hazards, what would a jury do to someone who let someone on the property with a firearm knowingly and they injured or killed someone whom may also is a guest? I think part of that is you have to generally knowingly and deliberately pull the trigger. I mean we have enough cops that shoot themselves, collegues or bystanders deliberately or accidently. I mean I do everything I can to avoid gun free zones. I don’t care if someone comes in to my space with one, provided they are not waving it around and if it’s not slung or in a holster I see it’s been unloaded with the chamber clear. I also agree that if you willingly disarm someone you become responsible for the outcome if there comes to being bodily harm inflicted upon anyone you disarmed.
Sailor Paul · November 21, 2025 at 11:36 pm
Libertarians are ALL.selfish, autistic retarded assholes. This is a universal.
ghostsniper · November 21, 2025 at 8:44 pm
Why would any sane person surrender their natural right to self defense?
Dan D. · November 22, 2025 at 10:43 am
“go fly my DCS plane”
And there I was, 222 gigs of data later, abandoning my job and responsibilities to fly an A-10 in Poland. Thanks a lot, pal.
Divemedic · November 22, 2025 at 11:04 am
I’ve been flying an F/A-18c in the Persian Gulf and the Marianas…
I racked up 10 kills yesterday.
Comments are closed.