Workplace Violence, again - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Skid Row Joe · #16 09-13-2010, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

that's the problem, they probably don't. and since Johnny rent-a-cop (packing a baton and perhaps pepper spray only) is sitting at the front door, the woman had easy entrance.

I've worked at companies that employed off duty police officers as security. they sat right at the front entrance to the building and were very obviously ARMED. again, everyone seemed to act very pleasant and polite when in the vicinity of the security officer's desk. it takes a gun to stop a gun, always has and always will.

Real, ARMED, off-duty/retired, uniformed cops are worth any extra amount that a company pays them.

A buddy of mine does that type of duty at an inner-city, low-rent area grocery store. Rent-A-Cops would be of little value to the grocery store chain. The riff-raff would run-over any unarmed security guard. Real cops, can do real battle with some of the drugged-out, shoplifting scum that frequents stores like this one.

R Leo · #17 09-13-2010, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

... and why a food processing worker would have need for "a 357 Magnum" handgun in her car?

I'm just sayin'.....

What's the big deal? 2nd amendment not your style? This particular 'food processing worker' has a .357 in his car (well, actually it's a truck and the processing I do is bit further up-stream than Kraft).

Skid Row Joe · #18 09-13-2010, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Leo

What's the big deal? 2nd amendment not your style? This particular 'food processing worker' has a .357 in his car (well, actually it's a truck and the processing I do is bit further up-stream than Kraft).

DOH!!!!!

PSSSSST: 2nd Amendment rights are non-existent on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

If the gunwoman hadn't of been carrying on Kraft Co. property - the murders would not have happened.

HuskyMan · #19 09-13-2010, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

DOH!!!!!

PSSSSST: 2nd Amendment rights are non-existent on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

If the gunwoman hadn't of been carrying on Kraft Co. property - the murders would not have happened.

that's correct, and another reason why companies like Kraft need a serious review of their security polices. armed security guards seem to be a viable option for companies like Kraft. still, it is extremely unfortunate that an armed nanny is required due to people's inability to simply get along. sad.

strelnik · #20 09-13-2010, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

correct, many companies employ credit scores, criminal back ground checks, and psychological screening exams to try and weed out the losers. many in management have conflicting ideas as to what type of tests and back ground checks will weed out the whackos. obviously, no testing or back ground check is 100% fail safe. the nub job who killed all the students at Virginia Tech passed the required background checks to purchase a gun. proof once again that one's life may appear to be normal when it is not.

obviously, the 'rule breakers' will simply trot out to their car to retrieve their favorite toy to do damage. and, since the worker bees have been effectively disarmed by the 'no guns allowed on company premises' policies, they are SITTING DUCKS waiting to be plucked, yes?

The people who never do anything, never get out of line, never yell, never get mad, are the ones who are often "set off" by something. Then, because they have a clean record, they can get anything they want: weapon, 60 gallon drum full of gas, dynamite + f;lare gun, you name it.

Society spends too much time trying to insulate people from "badness" and in the course of doing so, creates greater problems. Like a slew of folks who have never done anything, never act out, and are unidentifiable ticking time bombs.

The guy who yells once in a while, *****es and complains, well, he gets noticed but he never or rarely does anything violent because he has let off the steam.

Read the poem Miniver Cheevy, I think it is, about a guy who lived all his life according to the rules and was "perfect." He picked up a revolver, held it to his temple and ended his perfection. Hmmmm.

HuskyMan · #21 09-13-2010, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Leo

What's the big deal? 2nd amendment not your style? This particular 'food processing worker' has a .357 in his car (well, actually it's a truck and the processing I do is bit further up-stream than Kraft).

it is what this particular woman did with her gun that is particularly disturbing. no one wants to infringe on 2nd amendment rights, however, she certainly infringed on the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' of the employees she killed.

Skid Row Joe · #22 09-13-2010, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

that's correct, and another reason why companies like Kraft need a serious review of their security polices. armed security guards seem to be a viable option for companies like Kraft. still, it is extremely unfortunate that an armed nanny is required due to people's inability to simply get along. sad.

Given the way of this country as late, I'm certain that Kraft and Co. will be held financially-liable for their employee's murderous actions of today.

I would seriously doubt that the murderer has the means to pay any upcoming civil-damages she is obviously responsible and liable for.

tbomachines · #23 09-13-2010, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

that's correct, and another reason why companies like Kraft need a serious review of their security polices. armed security guards seem to be a viable option for companies like Kraft. still, it is extremely unfortunate that an armed nanny is required due to people's inability to simply get along. sad.

I agree, these kinds of things are not 100% preventable given the personal ability of each of us Americans, but she probably could have been stopped at the front door, labeled a "risk" as she had recently been reprimanded (AFAIK), etc. etc. Hopefully, if any positive light is shed, other companies will begin to carefully step up security

Skid Row Joe · #24 09-13-2010, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

it is what this particular woman did with her gun that is particularly disturbing. no one wants to infringe on 2nd amendment rights, however, she certainly infringed on the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' of the employees she killed.

Correct.

Some are unaware of the difference between public, and private property rights in America.

***HuskyMan
The ninnie wearing-a-girdle, stalking me on his bicycle - obviously understood what would have happened to him if he had advanced threateningly to attempt to attack me on my private property from public property.

HuskyMan · #25 09-13-2010, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

I agree, these kinds of things are not 100% preventable given the personal ability of each of us Americans, but she probably could have been stopped at the front door, labeled a "risk" as she had recently been reprimanded (AFAIK), etc. etc. Hopefully, if any positive light is shed, other companies will begin to carefully step up security

hopefully, companies will simply hire ARMED security guards and sit them prominently by the front door. in addition, the guard needs to make hourly sweeps of the building so that people know he/she is 'in the area' and watching over the children while they play (oops, I mean work).

HuskyMan · #26 09-13-2010, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Correct.

Some are unaware of the difference between public, and private property rights in America.

***HuskyMan
The ninnie wearing-a-girdle, stalking me on his bicycle - obviously understood what would have happened to him if he had advanced threateningly to attempt to attack me on my private property from public property.

yeah, some of them understand, but then you may have a whacko who doesn't and is willing to escalate the situation. some people have become out of control and any little thing may set them off.

I like the movie "Escape from LA" starring Kurt Russel. move all the whack jobs to an isolated island and keep them in chains. Alcatraz was a great idea, simply expand on that idea. move them WAY offshore, perhaps to another planet?

Skid Row Joe · #27 09-13-2010, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

yeah, some of them understand, but then you may have a whacko who doesn't and is willing to escalate the situation. some people have become out of control and any little thing may set them off.

I like the movie "Escape from LA" starring Kurt Russel. move all the whack jobs to an isolated island and keep them in chains. Alcatraz was a great idea, simply expand on that idea. move them WAY offshore, perhaps to another planet?

Right.

I took a chance by driving home, instead of running away.....

I had done nothing wrong in breaking any laws to torque off the girdle-wearer. He was trying to take up 1.5 width of automobile /truck lanes on his silly bicycle in a residential, double-yellow-lined, 2 mile long, NO PASSING ZONE. Each way has lanes 1.5 cars wide. I skirted his dumb bicycle by a couple/three feet in width - where he was trying to take the whole 1.5 W I D E lane.

When he pitched a fit - I thought; 'bring-it-on' 'cause I wasn't going to run away.

HuskyMan · #28 09-13-2010, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Right.

I took a chance by driving home, instead of running away.....

I had done nothing wrong in breaking any laws to torque off the girdle-wearer. He was trying to take up 1.5 width of automobile /truck lanes on his silly bicycle in a NO PASSING ZONE. I skirted his dumb bicycle by a couple/three feet in width - where he was trying to take the whole 1.5 W ID E lane. I thought; 'bring-it-on' 'cause I wasn't going to run away.

people like that do give one cause for concern. and yes, you did take a chance by driving home. but, sometimes you have to take a stand and if they want a fight, bring it on.

I'm still trying to figure out why some cyclists seem to think that the road is only for them. it's hard to see them in the daylight, much less at night. and, if you hit one while in a car, it's automatically your fault. why can't they find a nice bike path somewhere and leave the roads to cars and trucks?

Skid Row Joe · #29 09-13-2010, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

people like that do give one cause for concern. and yes, you did take a chance by driving home. but, sometimes you have to take a stand and if they want a fight, bring it on.

I'm still trying to figure out why some cyclists seem to think that the road is only for them. it's hard to see them in the daylight, much less at night. and, if you hit one while in a car, it's automatically your fault. why can't they find a nice bike path somewhere and leave the roads to cars and trucks?

X 2

It seems they're looking for someone to go off on. Funny, how he wasn't prepared to follow-up his non-existent, self-proclaimed right of "commandeering an entire roadway" during rush hour, when push came to shove. He backed down like a puppy at my lot line. Really a funny sight to see. LOL!

HuskyMan · #30 09-13-2010, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

X 2

It seems they're looking for someone to go off on. Funny, how he wasn't prepared to follow-up his non-existent, self-proclaimed right of "commandeering an entire roadway" during rush hour, when push came to shove. He backed down like a puppy at my lot line. Really a funny sight to see. LOL!

yeah, most of them are blow fish, they blow up and look tough for a few minutes, then they lose all their air. your guy probably lost ten days of life due to over stressing his arteries by becoming angry. stupid.