A Policy Abetting Murder

To the jerks at Circle K management:

So you fired Eric Henderson for fighting for his life against the lowlifes who tried rob your store AND threatened his life. Only in an alternate universe where good is evil and evil is good would it be possible to justify this indefensible action of firing a man from a job for defending his life, your suicidal corporate policy notwithstanding.

There are Circle K stores in my vicinity. Don’t expect me patronize them until I hear that you have publicly fired the individual or individuals who devised that above referenced policy and eliminated said policy. And readers of my blog will be encouraged to do likewise.


Go here and do likewise if you are so inclined.

h/t: David

2 thoughts on “A Policy Abetting Murder

  1. The reason for such policies is simple: an employer is not civilly liable if an armed robber kills an employee, but can be held civilly liable if an employee injures the robber. Thus the business is protecting itself by having an “allow them to kill you, but do not resist” policy.

    Employees are easier to replace than the millions of dollars that would be lost in lawsuits by injured criminals and their ambulance chasing attorneys.

    This is one of the ways that our legal system discourages self defense. This is also why I have no respect for “no guns” policies, and why I disagree with those who think that I should obey such policies.

  2. Actually, I didn’t think that was the case in Florida, where this took place. Florida was the first state to have the so called “Stand Your Ground” law, which is really just a Castle Doctrine law that extends to anywhere you are legally allowed to be.

    Part and parcel of almost all current Castle Doctrine law is the prohibition of any civil cause of action against anyone if the injury took place during the commission of a crime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *