Short version of the story: This piece of human debris holds a gun to the driver's head, demanding money. Driver shoots the debris three times, and the guy runs away (and is later arrested). Driver then gets fired from his job because, even though he has a valid concealed carry permit, it's against Pizza Hut "policy" to carry a weapon.
A Republican state lawmaker called on Iowans Friday to boycott Pizza Hut restaurants after the company fired a Des Moines delivery driver who shot an armed robber last month. Apparently, Pizza Hut would prefer that thier drivers be shot by muggers. A state senator said this:
"You tell me any Iowan that was in his situation, that had a gun put to his head, how they would've reacted differently," state Sen. Brad Zaun of Urbandale said. "I think it's the wrong decision by Pizza Hut and I will not be buying any more Pizza Hut products."
Now, boycotts and protests aren’t really the GreatMoose's bag. Probably because inside of me beats the heart of a lazy man. The thought of taking a day to go anywhere and carry a sign about anything makes my skin crawl. But, I will gladly avoid purchasing Pizza Hut's "pizza", which as it turns out, I was doing anyway. Long live Rosati's!
Thought question for the day: Is it ok for companies to maintain policies that are in direct contravention with an individual's constitutional rights?
This is actually a bit more nuanced (oh, how I hate that word) than it seems at first. Many places of business forbid the carrying of weapons, even if the person has a license, ie. schools, universities, goverment buildings, etc..., which is debatable, but this guy was IN HIS OWN CAR. Which according to "Castle Doctrine", means you are free to defend yourself by any means necessary. So, he wasn't on Pizza Hut property, but he was on Pizza Hut business. My own veiw is that PH is totally wrong here, and they shouldn't have fired the guy (and should repeal that stupid policy). What do you think?