Suppose You Were On A Jury...

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

..and the case before you was as follows.

PLAINTIFF: For the survivors and estate of John Doe.

Mr Doe was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Mr Doe had no criminal history or voilent tendencies that could be attested to.

On the night of 25 August 2006 Mr Doe was driving home from his place of employment Mr Doe was confronted by a knife-wielding mugger. When the mugger bcame agitated Mr Doe was stabbed and subsequently died from his wounds.

Mr Doe was not armed at the time of the assault as his employer had a company policy forbidding employees to bring weapons onto company property.

The plaintiffs charge that had the company not forbidden Mr Doe to exercise his constitutional and legally licensed rights he would have been able to defend himself.

The plaintiffs seek relief and punitive damages.

DEFENSE: The defendant is the sole owner of the property and as such is the final arbiter concerning who may enter the property and what may be brought onto the property as such the defendant was within his lawful rights to forbid the carrying of weapons.

Furthermore the defendant cites previous litigation wherein the company was found liable for failing to keep weapons off of company property when a dispute with a previous employee resulted in a violent shooting.

The defense seeks the dismissal of the suit.

[Chris_]

DEFENSE: The defendant is the sole owner of the property and as such is the final arbiter concerning who may enter the property and what may be brought onto the property as such the defendant was within his lawful rights to forbid the carrying of weapons.

That is it -- if we don't have property rights then we have no rights at all. Entry into someone's property is optional and is thus subject to whatever rules the property owner posits.  If you don't like the rule, don't enter.

OTOH, there may be negligence if said property is known to be problematic and require self-protection.

[VelvetElvis]

I don't know how I would vote in such a case, because I don't know the applicable laws. In any event, how I FEEL about the case has no bearing.  As a juror, it is my duty to find guilt or innocence based on the evidence and the law as it applies to the specific case.

The case as you describe it would appear to be civil, not criminal, and the legal standards and applicable statutes vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 

My personal view is that if the victim brings his gun onto the workplace property, so long as he keeps it securely stowed in the vehicle, that should be allowed, since I view the vehicle as an extension of sorts of the victim's property.  The right to bear arms and the rights of property owners are both hot button issues for me, so its not an easy call.

[formerlurker]

Zero case here and judge would grant motion for dismissal. 

How the heck did he get knifed driving home?   I think negligence is clearly on Mr. Doe for not locking the doors to his vehicle.

[Wretched Excess]

Zero case here and judge would grant motion for dismissal. 

How the heck did he get knifed driving home?   I think negligence is clearly on Mr. Doe for not locking the doors to his vehicle.

gotta agree with you on this one.  unless there is something we don't know, I just can't imagine any liability.

(no, I didn't go to law school, but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night )

[Wretched Excess]

Please share what brought this up, news story, text book case study, personal experience, or etc.  When you feel comfortable, I'd very much like to hear the background.

MSB shot a mugger dead as a hammer last night.  he is spinning the facts around a little bit to protect his identity

[JohnnyReb]

Furthermore the defendant cites previous litigation wherein the company was found liable for failing to keep weapons off of company property when a dispute with a previous employee resulted in a violent shooting.

The defense seeks the dismissal of the suit.

I don't think the judge would allow that little fact to be presented to the jury.

[DixieBelle]

I need more details. On the face of it, I would say "dismissal" too. The company cannot predict the future nor can anyone assure that the victim would have been able to even use his licensed handgun effectively.

[formerlurker]

How the heck did he get knifed driving home?   I think negligence is clearly on Mr. Doe for not locking the doors to his vehicle.

There are numerous plausible means, and you're making assumptions, before the purported facts are brought in!  

Name one.

[Chris_]

As stated by the OP, I would dismiss.....however there was recently a case eerily similiar to the OP, however the mugging happened on company property........in this case the jury found for the estate.....the employer had a right to disarm the employee, however, in doing so, the employer assumed the responsiblity for the employe's safety.......

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

As stated by the OP, I would dismiss.....however there was recently a case eerily similiar to the OP, however the mugging happened on company property........in this case the jury found for the estate.....the employer had a right to disarm the employee, however, in doing so, the employer assumed the responsiblity for the employe's safety.......

doc

Hm-m-m...

An interesting legal concept.

In this--ficticious--scenario the employee is disarmed beause of company policy even after he has left company property.

[formerlurker]

How the heck did he get knifed driving home?   I think negligence is clearly on Mr. Doe for not locking the doors to his vehicle.

There are numerous plausible means, and you're making assumptions, before the purported facts are brought in!  

Name one.

Sorry mate for rear ending you 'just a bit' at that red light... lets get out of the cars, inspect the damages, swap insurance... oh, nice watch     

Huge leap pulling the employer in as liable for this instance.   The employee knowing he/she was unarmed did not have to get out of the vehicle.

No dice.

[formerlurker]

As stated by the OP, I would dismiss.....however there was recently a case eerily similiar to the OP, however the mugging happened on company property........in this case the jury found for the estate.....the employer had a right to disarm the employee, however, in doing so, the employer assumed the responsiblity for the employe's safety.......

doc

Wouldn't matter if the employee was armed or not, the employer would have liability as it happened on their property.

[Chris_]

As stated by the OP, I would dismiss.....however there was recently a case eerily similar to the OP, however the mugging happened on company property........in this case the jury found for the estate.....the employer had a right to disarm the employee, however, in doing so, the employer assumed the responsibility for the employee's safety.......

doc

Wouldn't matter if the employee was armed or not, the employer would have liability as it happened on their property.

True, however in reading the summary of this case, the plaintiff argued that had the employee been armed, he would have had a "fighting chance".....although not changing the ultimate jury decision, disarming the employee seemed to have a substantial impact on the amount of punitive judgement.....

doc

[Chris_]

As stated by the OP, I would dismiss.....however there was recently a case eerily similar to the OP, however the mugging happened on company property........in this case the jury found for the estate.....the employer had a right to disarm the employee, however, in doing so, the employer assumed the responsibility for the employee's safety.......

doc

Wouldn't matter if the employee was armed or not, the employer would have liability as it happened on their property.

True, however in reading the summary of this case, the plaintiff argued that had the employee been armed, he would have had a "fighting chance".....although not changing the ultimate jury decision, disarming the employee seemed to have a substantial impact on the amount of punitive judgement.....

doc

Well, you have to then ask the question whether that means the place was inherently unsecure -- IOW what is the liability for an UNARMED person in the same situation?  Armed people are a tiny percentage of the population in CCW states (much less elsewhere).  Is there an onus to say "you MUST be armed to enter the premises?"

[Chris_]

Well, you have to then ask the question whether that means the place was inherently insecure -- IOW what is the liability for an UNARMED person in the same situation?  Armed people are a tiny percentage of the population in CCW states (much less elsewhere).  Is there an onus to say "you MUST be armed to enter the premises?"

Reading the case summary won't give you that kind of detail.....I guess that you would have to read a transcript to determine if the fact that premises were inherently insecure was a part of the argument.  I got the impression from the summary that the jury was really pissed that the employer was very blatant about their "no guns" policy, and wanted to send a message.  In the case in point, the employee did not want to carry while actually working, but because of the company policy was not even allowed to keep his CCW weapon in his personal vehicle if it was parked in the company lot.  The guy was ultimately carjacked and killed while departing the company lot....

doc

[Airwolf]

As stated by the OP, I would dismiss.....however there was recently a case eerily similiar to the OP, however the mugging happened on company property........in this case the jury found for the estate.....the employer had a right to disarm the employee, however, in doing so, the employer assumed the responsiblity for the employe's safety.......

doc

This is also the arguement the NRA is having with the Conoco OIl company in Oklahoma over their ban on employees having guns in their personel vehicles on Conoco property. It's the same in Nebraska where I work as a Security Guard. Problem is we have no way of defending ourselves on some of the contracts that have these policies let alone the Employees that work there. This is also why the asshat got away with killing 9 people at The Westroads in December In Omaha because no one there near by either as a private gun owner or mall security had any weapons near by on them to respond to the shooting.

[Wretched Excess]

look, avoiding jury duty is pretty easy.  just tell them that you honestly believe that everyone that has ever been arrested
for anything is automatically guilty, and that everyone that is guilty should be instantly executed, and, for that matter, you
just can't understand why they bother with this whole trial thingy in the first place.

you will be on your way home, or back to work, in no time.

[Chris_]

look, avoiding jury duty is pretty easy.  just tell them that you honestly believe that everyone that has ever been arrested
for anything is automatically guilty, and that everyone that is guilty should be instantly executed, and, for that matter, you
just can't understand why they bother with this whole trial thingy in the first place.

you will be on your way home, or back to work, in no time.

I think Judges get pissed at that -- but to say "I just want you to know that my experience with (police, profession of defendant, type of case, etc.) I may be biased against same -- I will try to keep an open mind but in the interests of justice and fairness I want everyone to know."  That works like a champ -- you'll get bounced on a preemptory and if it is a "1 day, 1 case" setup, you are done.
 

[DixieBelle]

And ironically, I've always wanted to serve on a jury. Never even been called once.

[Chris_]

And ironically, I've always wanted to serve on a jury. Never even been called once.

If I had the time, I would love it.  I think I would be a good juror because I really can section out my feelings from hard cold evidence (or evidentiary direction).

Somewhere in So. Cal. there is someone who would have benefited from me not being on their jury ;)

[Wretched Excess]

look, avoiding jury duty is pretty easy.  just tell them that you honestly believe that everyone that has ever been arrested
for anything is automatically guilty, and that everyone that is guilty should be instantly executed, and, for that matter, you
just can't understand why they bother with this whole trial thingy in the first place.

you will be on your way home, or back to work, in no time.

I think Judges get pissed at that -- but to say "I just want you to know that my experience with (police, profession of defendant, type of case, etc.) I may be biased against same -- I will try to keep an open mind but in the interests of justice and fairness I want everyone to know."  That works like a champ -- you'll get bounced on a preemptory and if it is a "1 day, 1 case" setup, you are done.
 

"yes, I can be impartial.  I don't think the voices in my head can, though".

[DixieBelle]

Hmmm......this is an interesting development to say the least.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/state/epaper/2008/04/15/0415gunsatwork.html

[rich_t]

Hmmm......this is an interesting development to say the least.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/state/epaper/2008/04/15/0415gunsatwork.html

Interesting indeed.  Long over due IMO.

[Wretched Excess]

Hmmm......this is an interesting development to say the least.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/state/epaper/2008/04/15/0415gunsatwork.html

MSB is quite the visionary, ain't he?  I still say he shot a mugger deader'n sh_t, and is trying to get
an idea of what his chances are if he goes to trial.