Monday, September 15, 2003

Could you put a price on the life of a family member? Some people can & it comes to around $17 million.

I have no problem with them seeking monetary damages from the murderers.

But seeking damages from a person who helped steal the guns used in the murder, as well as the gun store from which they were stolen & two burglar alarm companies??? That's not seeking restitution, that's seeking a jack pot.

"But the families of Georgio Gallara and Jeremy Giordano said it's unlikely they will ever collect money from the killers, who are both serving life prison sentences.
'I think it's more symbolic than anything,' Giordano's father, Joseph Giordano of Hardyston, said after the settlements were announced Friday."

So that means they have to go after those capable of paying, even if they were not directly responsible for the murders of their family members?

"The now-defunct gun store and two burglar alarm companies, T&R Alarm System Inc. and Monital, agreed to pay undisclosed amounts."

I feel for the loss both families have suffered, but that in no way excuses their actions. Seeking restitution from the gun store from which the guns used in the crime were stolen from makes as much sense as suing Ford because someone stole a car & then hit a pedestrian with it.

There is one legitimate avenue they could have pursued other than suing the murderers: suing the victims' employers. Why wouldn't that be just as wrong as suing the gun store? Most delivery places prevent their employees from carrying weapons. In fact they usually make it a terminable offense to not only carry weapons, but to offer anything other than compliance to the robbers.

In my youth I worked for a few major pizza delivery companies. Pizza Hutt being one & Papa Johns being the other. With both places the company policy was to comply with whatever a robber wanted & to be completely disarmed at all times. They even go so far as to tell an employee that they cannot have weapons in their own vehicles while working.
& if you are robbed but have more cash on you than you should (usually $20 to make change & whatever the total was from your delivery) they usually terminate you because they feel you endangered other drivers by reinforcing the idea that drivers have more than $20 on them! They don't seem to realize that by forcing the drivers to be compliant victims that it re-inforces the idea that delivery drivers are easy targets with little risk. Not to mention the fact that some people will rob & kill you for far less than $20.

So if the pizza place in question prevented their drivers from being able to be armed & told them not to defend themselves & comply with whatever was asked of them, then they should be held liabel. To a lesser degree than the murderers of course, but held liabel for their complacency in it.

& the same would apply to any retail industry where the employees face a risk of robbery while being denied the means to protect themselves by company policy.

But to sue a gun store because guns were stolen & then used in a crime? That's not grief, it's greed.

Update: Want to know how effective the disarmed compliance policy is? Very, if you're a robber.

"A man robbed Papa John's Pizza in the 1800 block of East Amarillo Boulevard minutes after midnight Friday."

Luckily no one was injured. But that is just that: luck. The disarmed compliance policy depends solely on the benevolence of the robber to be effective. & let's be honest, would you bet your life that someone who threatens you with force would never make good on that threat?

No comments: