Pizza Hut delivers pink slip to employee held at gunpoint

I've managed and delivered for either pizza hut or little caesars resturants in Talledega, AL, Daleville/Ft. Rucker, AL, Hagerstown MD, Waynesboro, PA, Killeen/FT. Hood, tx, and have delivered for dominos or papa johns in many of the same areas. I've also worked for a couple single-resturant pizza shops.

Without exception they all forbade the bringing of guns to work. It was an offence which would result in immediate termination. Pizza hut had a seperate form that was part of the new hire paperwork that stated this policy, the new hire and the manager had to sign it.

Their policies were to hand over the cash, your car keys, whatever the robber wanted. Pizza hut would rather have to replace your car in a legal action than attempt to replace your life, lung, spleen, etc. Its just simply more cost effective to buy someone a replacement car than to pay potentially millions to the family of the victim.

I owned guns when I was delivering for these places, but I never carried them on the job. I would have handed any robber my cash bag, my wallet, my car keys and whatever else they wanted because I KNEW I would be compensated for any materiel items lost. It simply wasn't worth the potential risk to myself to fight back. I had nothing to lose if I gave him everything, and potentially everything to lose if I fought back.

Just wanted to put out a few factual experiences, especally the part about not being responsible for the cash if it was stolen and having been assured (and having assured the drivers I managed) multiple times that personal items stolen in a robbery would be replaced.

Originally posted by TheDuckster
We've established these facts so far:

1. Spiers HAD a permit to carry a gun.
2. Pizza Hut DOESN'T allow employees to carry arms.
3. Police justified shooting.

My next questions are:

1. For what reasons did Spiers have to justify carrying an armed weapon on him (alot of times)?
2. What kind of an area (very dangerous?) was he delivering to, that would possibly need to justify carrying a weapon?
3. Was he always in fear of his life?

He did request councelling. Hmm...

~Ducky~

[edit on 24-4-2008 by TheDuckster]

Ducky,

Spiers was a citizen of the United States of America. He right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected. He need absolutely no justification to carry a gun wherever it is legal for him to do so. I'm not sure if you are trying to imply he was looking for trouble, or if he knowingly put himself in harms way, or what. But he needs no reason, no justification, other than "Because I can." to carry a gun.

If I've misunderstood the intent of your questions, accept my pre-apology. Text is a wonderful invention, but sometimes subtle nuances don't come through and meaning/intent can get confused.

Also, just a pet peeve of mine, its not a weapon, its a gun, firearm, handgun, revolver, pistol, rifle. When you refer to a hammer, you call it a hammer, not a generic term like tool.

I delivered pizzas for many years. I was robbed twice at gunpoint. Very scary to be sure. Both times I basically lost the whole nights work, tips and time (police report and all). We were made to wear those signs on our cars, but I didn't want to. I was followed to my delivery and robbed because of the car sign. Of course I didn't realize I was being followed and they didn't pull up next to me they drove a block over and got out of their car, waited for me to deliver the pizza then ran from the shadows across the street pointing guns at me (there were 2 of them). I never knew they were even there.

Well I became very paranoid when delivering late at night. It was actually quite stressful. I wasn't allowed to carry a gun and we delivered to a college campus all night long as well as the rest of the area. Guns are not allowed on college campuses - IMO way too risky to carry a gun on campus. So I had no gun.

In the end I quit after about another 4 months. A total of 6 delivery drivers in our area were robbed (probably by the same people) in about 3 months after mine (I was the first, and 2 more from our store). The robbers got bolder too, firing shots in the air. I told the owner that the car signs were making it dangerous for us because they were following the drivers. If there were no sign how would they know we were delivering just driving down the road. Police also agreed with me and said not having the signs on the cars would greatly reduce the robberies. The owner? would have none of it - Really he could care less. It was obvious all he cared about was his money!

I'm not certain about other states, However, in Texas, a new law was passed just last year I think that says you can defend your auto like you can you own home.

I am also aware that Big Corp doesn't like guns at work ( for obvious reasons ) but a POV is still and always will be "private" property, even if used for work.

At the company my Father worked at the implemented a wellness program to cut the cost of heath care, one of the provisions was no smoking on company property, the problem started when people began smoking in their cars, the cars were on company property, so, ergo the company "tried" to bring disciplinary actions against these workers.

I came out eventually, that even though the car was on company property, the OWNERSHIP was private, there fore the car was private property even when parked on company property.

If it comes out that he never carried the fire arm out of the car, it was not on "company" property, and was wrongful termination.

when i worked at best buy it was against company policy to stop a thief. if you caught him at the door, fine, but we weren't allowed to chase him if he ran out of the store. something about liability in the event that either the employee or the thief fell, got beat up, etc.

it's commonplace and while it may not seem wrong from a common sense/real life perspective, it can mean lawsuits for the company. i'm not saying he shouldn't have defended himself. i'm just saying the company also has to protect their own interests.

if you really want to boycott pizza hut, you might as will boycott pepsi, kfc, taco bell, etc. it's all the same company.

reply to post by an0maly33


Pizza Hut is no longer part of Pepsico. They are owned by YUM! which also owns KFC and Taco Bell. And most of the pizza huts on the east coast are franchised and owned by a large pizza company (I forget the name). Corporately owned pizza huts are a minority of stores now from what I understand.



[edit on 24-4-2008 by 2 cents]

good clarification. i stand corrected. =)

Originally posted by Charity
Wouldn't it have been more prudent though to just give the robber all the money ... and a free Hawaiian ?

Better that than getting ones brains blown out.

Yhea - I know when I was delivering pizzas that's what I would of done.. What's a bit of cash (you should never carry too much) and some fancy cheese on toast?? - I also had the added problem of the little honda C90!! - man I miss that thing! I'd come back to it and it was covered in 12 year olds.. telling me they gonna nick my bike - that's not my bike! - then they might try to stop me going, when they hang off the box on the back the front wheel pops up so fast the kids just scatter laughing there heads off - a few more wheelies later I finished up with my signature peice - one more wheelie... I step off leaving the bike stood up on the back box (leaking petrol).. That kept the younuns happy.

If I ever thought I was in danger though I just give up the cash - and woa betide any supervisor that said I done wrong. Id just be happy giving good solid details to the police.

While most company policies in these situations, as was already stated, is to simply hand the robber whatever they like, in this day and age doing so is no assurance that you will walk away unharmed. It's my belief that when one is faced with such a scenario, and one is prepared to defend themselves, it's prudent to do so. Simply following the instructions of the offender seldom results in a desirable outcome, especially once it's discovered that you have a firearm.

Props to the delivery driver, he's likely alive today only because he took action.

reply to post by Coshy


I understand what you're saying, and hoped that I didn't come across in a mal-intent way. Was just stating 'matter of facts' is all. No worries my friend.

I'm a Canadian citizen, and our constitution dictates that we Canucks don't have the right to bear arms.

The two factors we have to look at right now:

Company Policies vs. Self Defense

It is my belief that Self Defence supercedes the policies. The delivery person IMHO had every right to protect his well-being. Period. The Police conceded that fact.

Now, we have to backtrack and look at the company policies (cart before the horse issues).

Was the delivery person aware of the procedures and rules when he signed the dotted line upon intial employment? A little technicality here, but let's work with this one.

Let's turn the tables, and pretend that the delivery person DIDN'T have a gun on his person. (I'd hate to think of the outcome of this situation), and the poor soul, God forbid, died, as a result of anothers actions.

In light of the present situation, it's a scenerio of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Tricky Tricky

~Ducky~





[edit on 24-4-2008 by TheDuckster]

Hey thisguyrighthere, i see your in ct! im down in stamford, cheers man
Here inmy city, in the police blotter, during the summer, its becoming very common for Dominos pizza deliverers to get robbed, mostly at gunpoint,buy underage kids from our hood section of town. Last year, i remembering reading about 6 pizza robberies! over the course of the hot and humid summer.
IN this guys case, mixed feelings. i cant think of one job anywhere, where you would still have a job if you bought a firearm to work, not including police officer of course.
But, myabe the section of town was that bad???

Originally posted by Charity
Wouldn't it have been more prudent though to just give the robber all the money ... and a free Hawaiian ?

Better that than getting ones brains blown out.

No it wouldn't. We have people dialing 911 for a medical emergency and shooting the paramedics to steal the drugbox. I don't think these scumbags should be given the benefit of doubt.

Now i'm from england so we can't carry guns legally (The smart idea) However that doesn't stop people carrying them illegally. But if a guy has a gun to my head I'd get up give him the keys to my car give him the money and let him go.

I honestly think you would have to be a little crazy to shoot someone to protect money that isn't yours anyway. When I worked at a record store they told us that we might want to stall robbers a bit, but I was like i'm telling you right now if someone has a gun at me i'm opening the till.

I can't believe there are people calling for a pizza hut boycott its nuts!

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

That's why I feel sorry for pizza delivery guys in the uk, they have nothing to defend themselves, and people like to target them.
[edit on 23-4-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Thats because they dont need to have guns because they know the robbers will not have guns.

Feel sorry for the Guys in the US because they will be much, much more likely to get killed in a gun on gun confrontation than a fist on fist confrontation in the UK.

I'm sure I read a couple of months ago about UK looking into banning swords because of an increase of attacks utililizing them. Before going into the whole "guns are evil" thing.....maybe you should actually put some thought into the fact that bad guys are going to utilize anything at hand (legal or not). Me personally??? If I were to deliver to a location and meet up with a swordwielding robber, I'd feel better knowing I have something more substantial (never bring a knife to a gun fight). Indianapolis here.....fist to fist has been gone for quite a few years, just as it has in countries who have disarmed their (law abiding) citizens.

I haven't read through all the thread but will tell you this. I had a girl friend back in 1984 who worked for a chain gas station mini mart. She showed me the employee hand book and it stated if a robbery is in progress do nothing but comply with the perpatrators demands. If the perp rapes the female employee, do nothing but comply, take no action.

If the employee failed to follow these instructions, termination.

So these big corporate capitolistic pigs sit in there ivory towers safe from the real world and demand the lower class take in the boing or be fired.

Outrageous

So, what I'm hearing is that there should be no repercussions for carrying a gun when there's a chance of facing a dangerous situation.

Teachers

Paper boys

Day care workers

door to door salesmen

Jehovah's Witnesses

I know I don't want my teacher, or my pizza delivery guy to have the ability to pop a cap in my ass for answering the door.

What about students who live in tough neighborhoods? Should they be allowed to carry guns to and from school to protect them from the other kids who are carrying guns to and from school?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The link no worky.....

But why did he ask for counseling? Does he believe he has a problem? If so, maybe he knows best.

Ya know, pulling a gun on someone is nerve racking enough, but actually shooting someone?

For a normal good hearted man, that can be devastating. Its a last resort type thing.

Which is most likely why he wanted counseling so he could talk about it.

Anywho, I agree, boycott Pizza Hut (um, and Taco Bell, Long John Silvers, KFC) because all those companies are owned by the same corporation!


And I think he should sue Pizza Hut as well, teach those jerks to side with an armed robber against their own employee..

reply to post by TheDuckster



I agree, it is a damned if you do (and get fired) and damned if you dont (potentially get dead) situation.

As far as the right to defend himself, I agree he did, however the company has the responsibility for employee safety while on the job. So once again, its a paradigm. Where does ensuring the safety of the employee meet the companies interest for business.

Was the area a 'bad area', if so, deliveries should have been stopped to that area. This is not a fool-proof solution, but it shows the company is working for the safety of the employee. There has to be a happy medium where the employee is assured reasonable safe work environment, while the company is still allowed to engage in a profitable business.

Concerning the 'no guns at work' paperwork: While it was a few years ago, I was told to emphasise that point. Pizza Hut held to the belief that submitting was the way to go. I personally disagree, but that was a condition of employment, same as showing up on time and in the proper uniform.

For the record though, I do support the delivery drivers actions. I think they were correct and well within his right to protect himself.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Rockpuck,

He has no grounds to sue. He violated a term and/or condition of employment. I dont think its right, but rarely has right ever interfered with the law.

What I would rather see, than a largely useless boycott, is the franchise office being bombarded with mail supporting the driver and condemming the franchise for terminating his employment.

I'll do some checking and see if I can find the franchise address.

I deleted all content on My own.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]